Castro v. Gipson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights action that had been previously dismissed with leave to amend, but for which the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the deadline. The court ordered the dismissal of the action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety“The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his 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 plaintiff was given a specific deadline to amend the complaint after a prior dismissal for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff failed to respond or amend within the time allowed. Under Edwards v. Marin Park and Henderson v. Duncan, a district court has the discretion to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. The dismissal is supported by the record of the plaintiff's inaction. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It clearly states the history of the case, the specific deadline given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's failure to act, and the legal basis for the dismissal under Rule 41(b) and Ninth Circuit case law. The reasoning directly addresses the motion/order context (sua sponte dismissal after a prior order to amend).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS CASTRO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0789-DMS-DEB CDCR #V33841, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE vs. A CLAIM AND FAILING TO 14 PROSECUTE 15 CONNIE GIPSON, J. HILL, AMADOR, 16 D. EUSTAQUIO, SEGOVIA, WINGO, SURKHI, M. VILORIA, GONZALEZ, J. 17 MOECKLY, H. MOSELEY, W. SMITH, 18 Defendant. 19 20 On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff Dennis Castro, a prisoner confined R. J. Donovan 21 Correctional Facility and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983. ECF No. 1. After the Court initially dismissed the action for failure to satisfy the 23 filing fee requirement, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and 24 the case was reopened. On September 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion 25 and sua sponte dismissed the Complaint in its entirety for failure comply with Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. 27 In the same order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the pleading deficiencies of his 28 complaint and the granted him leave amended it within 45 days. Id. at 6–14. Plaintiff was 1 informed that if he failed to timely amend, the Court would enter a final judgment of 2 || dismissal based on his failure to state a claim and his failure to prosecute in compliance 3 || with the court order requiring amendment. Jd. at 14 (citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, A || 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his 5 ||complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the 6 || entire action.”)). 7 The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order has long passed and the Court 8 ||has received no communication from Plaintiff. The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 9 ||respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the 10 || court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 11 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004): Henderson v. Duncan, 779 12 || F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for 13 || lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order): see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 14 || (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with the federal 15 or court order). 16 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to 18 || state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to prosecute this action. The Court DIRECTS 19 || the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: March 24, 2025 22 =n Yn: LAN 23 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2