Stallworth v. Medical Staff & Doctors of Contra Costa County Jail

N.D. California

Stallworth v. Medical Staff & Doctors of Contra Costa County Jail

DecidedFebruary 17, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-04754

StatusUnknown

This text of Stallworth v. Medical Staff & Doctors of Contra Costa County Jail (Stallworth v. Medical Staff & Doctors of Contra Costa County Jail) 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

Stallworth v. Medical Staff & Doctors of Contra Costa County Jail, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOSEPH STALLWORTH, 7 Case No. 22-cv-04754-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE MEDICAL STAFF & DOCTORS OF 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JAIL, 11 Defendants.

12 On January 11, 2023, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 13 Specifically, the Court granted plaintiff twenty-eight days from the date of the Order to file an 14 amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Plaintiff 15 was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of 16 this action for failure to prosecute. The time for plaintiff to file his amended complaint has 17 passed, and no amended complaint has been filed. Taking into account the salient factors set forth 18 in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court finds that dismissal is 19 warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 20 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action following plaintiff's failure to amend 21 complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, 22 the court's management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants favored dismissal). 23 Accordingly, 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 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is 2 || DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated:February 17, 2023 5 OF | hte lbtec JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 6 vited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOSEPH STALLWORTH, 7 Case No. 22-cv-04754-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE MEDICAL STAFF & DOCTORS OF 10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JAIL, 11 Defendants.

12 On January 11, 2023, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. 13 Specifically, the Court granted plaintiff twenty-eight days from the date of the Order to file an 14 amended complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Plaintiff 15 was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of 16 this action for failure to prosecute. The time for plaintiff to file his amended complaint has 17 passed, and no amended complaint has been filed. Taking into account the salient factors set forth 18 in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court finds that dismissal is 19 warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 20 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action following plaintiff's failure to amend 21 complaint after receiving leave to do so, where the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, 22 the court's management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants favored dismissal). 23 Accordingly, 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 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is 2 || DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated:February 17, 2023 5 OF | hte lbtec JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 6 vited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stallworth v. Medical Staff & Doctors of Contra Costa County Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stallworth-v-medical-staff-doctors-of-contra-costa-county-jail-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack