Sanchez v. George Bailey Jail
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The court considered a prisoner's civil rights action regarding the destruction of legal materials and his failure to file an amended complaint after being granted leave to do so. The court dismissed the action without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice.” | agree with court The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline and warned that failure to amend would result in dismissal. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the extended deadline. Dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute is a standard and appropriate exercise of the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce compliance with court orders. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It relies on the Ninth Circuit precedent in Lira v. Herrera to support the conversion of a dismissal with leave to amend into a dismissal of the action when the plaintiff fails to amend. The facts (failure to file by the deadline) support the application of this rule. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is consistent with the failure to prosecute rationale rather than a final merits determination, though the prior order also cited failure to state a claim.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSUE ISREAL SANCHEZ, Case No.: 24cv0134-AJB (LR) CDCR #BC-0031, 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. 14 GEORGE BAILEY JAIL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff Josue Israel Sanchez, a state prisoner incarcerated at 19 Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied by a Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 21 1-2.) Plaintiff claimed his due process rights were violated when his legal materials were 22 destroyed during a transfer to the George Bailey Jail in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 23 1 at 3.) 24 On February 14, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and 25 dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief 26 may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (ECF No. 3.) The 27 Court found the Complaint failed to state a federal due process claim because Plaintiff had 28 an adequate state post-deprivation remedy for the loss of property, failed to state an access | |}to courts claim because it failed to allege an actual injury arising from the loss of legal 2 || materials, and failed to name a proper Defendant. (/d. at 4-6.) Plaintiff was granted leave 3 ||to amend on or before April 1, 2024, and specifically instructed that if he failed to file an 4 || Amended Complaint within the time provided the Court will enter a final Order dismissing 5 || this civil action based both on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 6 || granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute in compliance 7 || with a court order requiring amendment. (/d. at 7-8, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 8 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 9 || complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the 10 || entire action.”) On March 20, 2024, the Court extended the time to amend on □□□□□□□□□□□ 11 |}motion until May 1, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended 12 || Complaint. 13 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk of 14 || Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: June 5, 2024 © ¢ 7 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28