Gonzalez v. GEO Western Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court dismissed a pro se Bivens civil action for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute after the plaintiff failed to amend his complaint following a screening order. The court certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which Bivens relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s July 1, 2024 Order.” | agree with court The court applied the screening statutes for prisoner civil actions and the inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The dismissal is supported by the plaintiff's failure to respond to a court order granting leave to amend, a standard basis for dismissal under Rule 41(b) as cited in the order. The footnote regarding the undeliverable mail and the plaintiff's failure to update his address under Local Rule 83.11.b further supports the failure to prosecute finding. |
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 The court exercised its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) to deny IFP status for an appeal. This is a standard procedural step following a dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint that fails to state a claim. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for screening and dismissal. It relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule to support the likelihood that the Bivens claim fails on the merits, and on Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards) to support the dismissal for failure to prosecute. The footnote appropriately addresses the procedural issue of the undeliverable mail and the plaintiff's failure to update his address, reinforcing the failure to prosecute rationale. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAUL GONZALEZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00257-WQH-AHG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 12 vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 13 GEO WESTERN DETENTION 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) AND 1915A(b) FACILITY; N. VAZQUEZ, GEO Facility 14 AND FOR FAILURE TO Administrator; CARNEY, Associate PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 15 Warden; T. HARTLEY, GEO Counselor, WITH COURT ORDER 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 HAYES, Judge: 20 In this civil action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics 21 Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), pro se Plaintiff Raul Gonzalez alleged Defendants violated 22 his constitutional rights by failing to provide access to an American Indian spiritual advisor 23 during his three-day hunger strike in December 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 1‒5.) 24 On July 1, 2024, the Court granted Gonzalez leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but 25 screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, and dismissed it 26 sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which Bivens relief can granted. (ECF No. 3 at 27 3, 6‒12.) The Court noted that while it was unlikely Gonzalez would be able to state a 28 plausible claim for relief under Bivens, it granted him forty-five days leave in which to | |}amend and provide more detailed factual allegations that might cure his pleading 2 || deficiencies in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 3 ||498 (2022) (finding “no Bivens cause of action for [a] First Amendment retaliation 4 |\claim.”). Ud. at 12-13.) The Court cautioned Gonzalez his failure to act would result in 5 || dismissal both for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute. (/d. at 13-14.) 6 To date, Gonzalez has failed to comply with the Court’s Order, and has not requested 7 ||an extension of time in which to do so.! “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond 8 |/to the court’s ultimatum—cither by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court 9 ||that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 10 || Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 13 Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which Bivens relief can be granted pursuant to 28 14 |/U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by 15 Court’s July 1, 2024 Order. 16 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 17 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 18 || dismissal and close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 3, 2024 BME: Me 2 Ma 21 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 23 24 95 In fact, the Court’s July 1, 2024 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office on July 9, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) Gonzalez has not filed a notice of change of address or any other document either 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 28 Court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”).