Pies v. San Diego Sheriff's Department
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court dismissed a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute after the plaintiff failed to respond to a screening order that was returned undeliverable due to his release from custody. The court directed the entry of final judgment and certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of inadequate medical care, excessive force, and Monell claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim.“Accordingly, the Court dismisses his inadequate medical care, excessive force, and Monell claims against Defendants San Diego Department, Sgt. Renick, Lt. Lizarraga, Deputies Paredes and Kerns, and Nurse Arquero for failure to state a claim as set forth in the Court’s February 29, 2024 Order.” | agree with court The order recites that the court previously screened the complaint and found it deficient. While the specific legal basis for the initial dismissal is not detailed in this order, the dismissal for failure to state a claim is a standard procedural outcome following a screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or Rule 12(b)(6). The order relies on the prior order's findings. |
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to prosecute.“The Court also dismisses this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s February 29, 2024 Order.” | agree with court The court applied Rule 41(b) authority via Edwards v. Marin Park. The plaintiff failed to respond to the court's ultimatum to amend or proceed against a specific defendant. The footnote notes the order was returned undeliverable due to release, but the plaintiff failed to update his address as required by Local Rule 83.11.b. The dismissal for failure to prosecute is procedurally sound given the plaintiff's inaction and failure to maintain contact with the court. |
Certification that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.“The Court further certifies that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).” | agree with court This is a standard certification under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for pro se prisoners. Given the procedural nature of the dismissal and the plaintiff's failure to prosecute, the certification is consistent with the outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural history: the plaintiff failed to respond to a screening order that gave him options to amend or proceed against a specific defendant. The court cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards) for dismissing a case when a plaintiff fails to respond to a court's ultimatum. The footnote appropriately addresses the issue of the order being returned undeliverable due to the plaintiff's release, noting that the plaintiff failed to update his address as required by local rules. The dismissal for failure to prosecute is supported by the plaintiff's inaction. The certification of IFP appeal is standard. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL PIES, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01097-JO-LR Booking #23709854, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE vs. TO PROSECUTE 14 SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S 15 DEPARTMENT; RENICK, Sergeant 16 #4747; BERNAL PAREDES, Deputy #4488; NEWLAN, Deputy #3749; 17 KERNS, Deputy #3999; LIZARRAGA, 18 Lieutenant #5400; and ARGUERO, Nurse #4970, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Gabriel Pies, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 23 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 24 Dkt. 1–2. Plaintiff alleged Defendants failed to provide adequate medical care after he 25 suffered an asthma attack and cuffed him too tightly while he was detained at the George 26 Bailey Detention Facility. Dkt. 1 at 4‒5. On February 29, 2024, the Court screened 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint sua sponte and dismissed most of it because he failed to state 28 plausible claims for relief. Dkt. 3 at 5‒10. The Court granted Plaintiff the option to file 1 || either (1) a written notice of his intent to proceed against Defendant Newlan only; or (2) 2 ||an amended complaint that cured his pleading deficiencies within forty-five (45) days. Jd. 3 9, 10. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would result in dismissal 4 || for failure to prosecute. /d. at 10-11. 5 To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order, and has not requested 6 extension of time in which to do so.'! Accordingly, the Court dismisses his inadequate 7 ||medical care, excessive force, and Monell claims against Defendants San Diego □□□□□□□□□ 8 || Department, Sgt. Renick, Lt. Lizarraga, Deputies Paredes and Kerns, and Nurse Arquero 9 || for failure to state a claim as set forth in the Court’s February 29, 2024 Order. The Court 10 |/also dismisses this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute as 11 ||required by the Court’s February 29, 2024 Order. Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 12 || 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 13 || ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not 14 || do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). 15 The case is DISMISSED. The Court directs the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 16 || dismissal and close the case. The Court further certifies that an IFP appeal would not be 17 || taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: May 24, 2024 Qe 20 21 Honorable Jinsook Ohta United States District Judge 23 24 95 ‘Tn fact, the Court’s February 29, 2024 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office on March 11, 2024, due to Plaintiff's release. Dkt. 4-1. Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address 26 || before or since. See S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 83.11.b (“A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the Clerk at the 27 plaintiff's last designated address is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the Court may 28 || 7. a dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”).