Estes v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se civil rights complaint that had been previously dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, and the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline. The court ordered the action dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to amend his pleading.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the rule that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a court order granting leave to amend, after being warned of the consequences, results in dismissal. The court cited Edwards v. Marin Park and Henderson v. Duncan, which support the proposition that a court may dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. The dismissal is consistent with the procedural history recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It recites the prior dismissal with leave to amend, the deadline set, the warning given, and the plaintiff's failure to act. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for dismissing a case when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order to amend. The reasoning directly supports the result.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS ESTES, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1190-RSH-SBC Booking #24722637, 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, KELLY 15 MARTINEZ, OFFICER LOPEZ, 16 MULTIPLE UNKNOW DEPUTIES, PALOMAR COLLEGE POLICE 17 DEPARTMENT 18 Defendants. 19 20 On July 10, 2024, Marcos Estes (“Plaintiff”), a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a 21 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his 22 constitutional rights when they detained and/or took him into custody on three different 23 occasions. See ECF No. 1. On November 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting 24 Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed the Complaint without prejudice and with leave 25 to amend. See ECF No. 3. On the same day, the Court mailed the Order to the two addresses 26 Plaintiff listed in his Complaint. See ECF No. 1 at 8. The Court gave Plaintiff until January 27 6, 2025 to file an amended complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies identified in the 28 dismissal order and also cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to respond by filing an amended 1 |}complaint would result in the Court entering a final order of dismissal of this action. See 2 || ECF No. 3 at 12-13. 3 The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order has passed and the Court has 4 ||received no communication from Plaintiff. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 5 respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the 6 court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 7 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 8 || F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for 9 || lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order). 10 Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on □□□□□□□□□□□ 11 || failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to amend his pleading. The Court 12 || DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: January 23, 2025 Kehr ‘ Howe 15 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28