Tyler v. Doctor Lu
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs and a subsequent failure to file an amended complaint after a prior dismissal without prejudice. The court ordered the action dismissed 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 dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and granted leave to amend. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may convert a dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action if the plaintiff fails to take advantage of the opportunity to fix the complaint. The court's decision follows this procedural rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the procedural rule that a failure to amend a complaint after being granted leave to do so results in dismissal of the action. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Lira v. Herrera) to support this conversion from dismissal of the complaint to dismissal of the action. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on failure to prosecute.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CLAUDIE TYLER, Case No.: 23cv2284-LL-SBC CDCR No. K-19763, 11 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. 13 14 DOCTOR LU, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff Claudie Tyler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1, 19 Complaint (“Compl.”). Plaintiff claims that while he was incarcerated at the Richard J. 20 Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, his treating physician, 21 Defendant Dr. Lu (“Defendant”), discontinued his diabetes medication for nearly two years 22 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has paid the civil filing fee. ECF 23 No. 6. 24 On December 27, 2023, 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 can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). ECF No. 7. The Court found the 27 Complaint contained no factual allegations which plausibly alleged that Defendant 28 discontinued Plaintiff’s medication in deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 1 ||/d. at 3-5. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend on or before April 18, 2024, and was 2 ||specifically instructed that if he failed to file an amended complaint within the time 3 || provided the Court would enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on 4 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 5 || 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring 6 |}amendment. Jd. at 5—6; see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If 7 plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 8 ||may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.’’). To date, 9 || Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 10 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 11 Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: June 12, 2024 NO 14 eS 15 Honorable Linda Lopez 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2