(PC) Franks v. Roberts
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights action that had previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, with the plaintiff granted multiple extensions to file an amended complaint. The court ordered the case dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff failed to file the amended complaint or respond to the court's deadline.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to prosecute“The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to prosecute this action.” | agree with court The court properly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Ninth Circuit precedent to dismiss the case. The record establishes that the plaintiff was given a specific deadline (April 22, 2024) to file an amended complaint after the initial dismissal without prejudice, and the court received no communication or filing from the plaintiff after that date. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a standard sanction for ignoring court orders and deadlines. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural history (initial dismissal without prejudice, extensions granted, deadline passed) and applies the correct legal standard (Rule 41(b) and Ninth Circuit case law) to the facts (failure to file amended complaint or respond). The reasoning directly supports the conclusion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOM M. FRANKS, Case No.: 3:23-cv-2130-JAH-DDL CDCR # AV-3360, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO vs. PROSECUTE 14 15 S. ROBERTS, SHAKIBA, MAJAMAD, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On November 9, 2023, Tom M. Franks (“Plaintiff” or “Franks”), a state inmate 21 proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a 22 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. On December 20, 2023, the 23 Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for 24 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff 45 days to file an amended 25 complaint and advised him that failure to do so would result in the Court entering a final 26 order of dismissal. Id. at 8. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff two extensions of time 27 to file his amended complaint, the latter of which required Plaintiff to file it no later than 28 April 22, 2024. See ECF No. 11. 1 Il. DISCUSSION 2 The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order has passed and the Court has 3 ||received no further communication from Plaintiff. The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 4 respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the 5 || court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 6 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 7 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for 8 || lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 9 ||(providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with the federal 10 |/rules or court order). 1] Ht. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to 13 || state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to prosecute this action. The Court DIRECTS 14 || the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 15 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: June 3, 2024 VU 18 JOHN A. HOUSTON 19 JUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28