Chavarry v. San Diego County Jail Medical Staff
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se detainee's failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set in a prior order. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 41(b) principles, which allow for dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The record establishes that the plaintiff was given a specific deadline to amend and was warned of the consequences of non-compliance. The plaintiff failed to respond, and the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the case. This is a standard procedural sanction for non-compliance. |
Direction to Clerk to close the case“The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.” | agree with court This is a standard administrative order following the dismissal of the action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the specific prior order that set the deadline, notes the plaintiff's failure to comply, and applies the correct Ninth Circuit precedent regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is appropriate given the procedural nature of the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MAURICE TERAE CHAVARRY, Jr., Case No.: 3:24-cv-01411-RSH-VET Booking #24728371, 11 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 15 STAFF; SAN DIEGO COUNTY 16 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On August 7, 2024, Maurice Terae Chavarry, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a detainee proceeding 20 pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 1]. On December 21 30, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed the 22 Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. ECF No. 3. The Court gave Plaintiff 23 until February 14, 2025 to file an amended complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies 24 identified in the dismissal order and also cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to respond by 25 filing an amended complaint would result in the Court entering a final order of dismissal 26 of this action. See id. at 11. 27 28 1 Thereafter, mail sent by the Clerk to Plaintiff's address of record was returned as 2 || undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not amended his complaint, provided an updated address, 3 |}or otherwise communicated with the Court. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 4 respond to the court’s ulttmatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the 5 || court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 6 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 7 || F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for 8 ||lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order). Therefore, the Court 9 || DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close 10 || the case. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 12 || Dated: February 25, 2025 fekut ¢ Howe 13 Hon.RobertS.Huie ——S 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe