Wilson v. Mount Diablo Unified School District, 18-cv-03973-JD. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180914d92
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE JAMES DONATO , District Judge . On July 30, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice pro se plaintiff Michael Geary Wilson's complaint for failure to include a short and plain statement of the facts supporting his claim and the Court's jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 24. The Court gave Wilson until August 31, 2018 to file an amended complaint and advised him that failure to amend by that date would "result in a dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE JAMES DONATO , District Judge . On July 30, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice pro se plaintiff Michael Geary Wilson's complaint for failure to include a short and plain statement of the facts supporting his claim and the Court's jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 24. The Court gave Wilson until August 31, 2018 to file an amended complaint and advised him that failure to amend by that date would "result in a dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41..
More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
JAMES DONATO, District Judge.
On July 30, 2018, the Court dismissed without prejudice pro se plaintiff Michael Geary Wilson's complaint for failure to include a short and plain statement of the facts supporting his claim and the Court's jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 24. The Court gave Wilson until August 31, 2018 to file an amended complaint and advised him that failure to amend by that date would "result in a dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)." Id. As of the date of this order, the Court has not received an amended complaint.
The Court has considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court finds that notwithstanding the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the Court's need to manage its docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation require dismissal of this action. There is no appropriate less drastic sanction in light of plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint in a timely manner. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
