Ochoa v. Hill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights action after the plaintiff failed to file a Second Amended Complaint within the deadline set by the court. The court dismissed the action in its entirety for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk to enter final judgment and close the file.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to prosecute“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action.” | agree with court The court correctly 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 (October 10, 2024) to file a Second Amended Complaint after two prior dismissals for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff failed to respond or file by the deadline. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a standard sanction for non-compliance with court orders, and the court's reliance on Edwards v. Marin Park and Henderson v. Duncan is appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It clearly states the procedural history, the specific deadline given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's failure to act, and the legal basis for dismissal. The citations to Ninth Circuit authority and Federal Rule 41(b) are directly on point and support the conclusion. There are no gaps in the reasoning regarding the specific motion or sanction applied.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS ANTONIO OCHOA, Case No. 23-cv-2058-MMA (MMP) CDCR #F-81217 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILURE TO vs. PROSECUTE 14 JAMES HILL, DR. JOHN HODGES, DR. 15 LUZVIMINDA SAIDRO, JANE DOE, 16 MITCHELL, 17 Defendants. 18 19 November 6, 2023, Marcus Antonio Ochoa (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro 20 se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1. The Court 21 granted Plaintiff IFP status and sua sponte dismissed the original complaint for failure to 22 state a claim. Doc. No. 3. After an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 23 Complaint (“FAC”) on April 1, 2024. Doc. No. 6. The Court dismissed the FAC 24 because Plaintiff again failed to state a claim. Doc. No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff 45 25 days, or until October 10, 2024, to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 13. 26 The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order has passed and the Court has 27 received no communication from Plaintiff. The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 28 respond to the court’s ultimatum––either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 1 court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 2 dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. 3 || Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte 4 || dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order); see also 5 R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or 6 ||comply with the federal rules or court order). 7 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 8 || Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 9 judgment of dismissal and close the file. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: December 9, 2024 LMackuh le (lilt 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ELLO United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28