Hill v. Cornelson

N.D. California

Hill v. Cornelson

DecidedApril 25, 2022

Docket4:21-cv-06616

StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. Cornelson (Hill v. Cornelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Cornelson, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 CYMEYON V. HILL, 5 Case No. 21-cv-06616-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 6 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 7 SOCIAL WORKER CORNELSON, et al., 8 Defendants. 9

10 On February 3, 2022, the Court issued a Second Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 11 Specifically, the Court granted plaintiff twenty-eight days from the date of the Order to file a 12 second amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim. 13 Plaintiff was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the 14 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. The time for plaintiff to file his second amended 15 complaint has passed, and no second amended complaint has been filed. 16 Taking into account the salient factors set forth in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 17 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court finds that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 41(b). 1 See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal 19 of action following plaintiff’s failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the 20 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s management of its docket, and avoiding 21 prejudice to defendants favored dismissal). Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is 23 DISMISSED. 24 1 If and when plaintiff is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil rights 25 action. The limitations period to file a section 1983 action in California is two years, but it is tolled for up to two years during a continuous period of incarceration. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F. 26 3d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3), that the limitations period for filing a section 1983 action in California is one year); S.B. 688 (amending 27 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3) and adding section 335.1 to establish two-year residual limitations 1 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ||Dated: April 25, 2022 L~ ne □□□ plrleet eo JUDG} VONNE G@NZALEZ ROGERS 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 CYMEYON V. HILL, 5 Case No. 21-cv-06616-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 6 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE 7 SOCIAL WORKER CORNELSON, et al., 8 Defendants. 9

10 On February 3, 2022, the Court issued a Second Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 11 Specifically, the Court granted plaintiff twenty-eight days from the date of the Order to file a 12 second amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim. 13 Plaintiff was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the 14 dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. The time for plaintiff to file his second amended 15 complaint has passed, and no second amended complaint has been filed. 16 Taking into account the salient factors set forth in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 17 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court finds that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 41(b). 1 See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal 19 of action following plaintiff’s failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the 20 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s management of its docket, and avoiding 21 prejudice to defendants favored dismissal). Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is 23 DISMISSED. 24 1 If and when plaintiff is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil rights 25 action. The limitations period to file a section 1983 action in California is two years, but it is tolled for up to two years during a continuous period of incarceration. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F. 26 3d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3), that the limitations period for filing a section 1983 action in California is one year); S.B. 688 (amending 27 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3) and adding section 335.1 to establish two-year residual limitations 1 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ||Dated: April 25, 2022 L~ ne □□□ plrleet eo JUDG} VONNE G@NZALEZ ROGERS 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hill v. Cornelson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-cornelson-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack