Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff

N.D. California

Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff

DecidedJanuary 21, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-01874

StatusUnknown

This text of Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff (Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff) 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

Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JEFFREY THEODORE SHELDON, 9 Case No. 24-cv-01874-AMO (PR) Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 11 PREJUDICE SAN QUENTIN STAFF, 12 Defendants. 13

14 On November 15, 2024, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 15 Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff Jeffrey Theodore Sheldon twenty-eight days from the date 16 of the Order to file an amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable 17 constitutional claim. Sheldon was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint 18 would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. The time for Sheldon to file 19 his amended complaint has passed, and no amended complaint has been filed. Taking into 20 account the salient factors set forth in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the 21 Court finds that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 See Yourish 22 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action following 23 the plaintiff’s failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the interest in 24 1 If and when Sheldon 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 expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice 2 to defendants favored dismissal). 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is 4 || DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 21, 2025 7 =

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 g 12

13 14

15 16

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 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JEFFREY THEODORE SHELDON, 9 Case No. 24-cv-01874-AMO (PR) Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 11 PREJUDICE SAN QUENTIN STAFF, 12 Defendants. 13

14 On November 15, 2024, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 15 Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff Jeffrey Theodore Sheldon twenty-eight days from the date 16 of the Order to file an amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable 17 constitutional claim. Sheldon was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint 18 would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. The time for Sheldon to file 19 his amended complaint has passed, and no amended complaint has been filed. Taking into 20 account the salient factors set forth in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the 21 Court finds that dismissal is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 See Yourish 22 v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action following 23 the plaintiff’s failure to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the interest in 24 1 If and when Sheldon 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 expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice 2 to defendants favored dismissal). 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is 4 || DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 21, 2025 7 =

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 g 12

13 14

15 16

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sheldon v. San Quentin Staff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheldon-v-san-quentin-staff-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack