Harris v. Guzman
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that had previously been dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, but for which the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or respond to the court's deadline. The court ordered the dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, directing the Clerk to enter final judgment and close the file.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety“Accordingly, 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 dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline and warned of dismissal. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or communicate with the court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court's reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park and Henderson v. Duncan) supports the conclusion that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend or state an intent not to amend warrants dismissal. The order correctly identifies the basis for dismissal as both the underlying failure to state a claim (from the prior order) and the subsequent failure to prosecute. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture. It correctly identifies the prior dismissal with leave to amend, the expiration of the deadline, the plaintiff's inaction, and the applicable legal standard for dismissal for failure to prosecute. The citations to Ninth Circuit authority are appropriate and directly on point for the specific situation of a pro se plaintiff failing to respond to a court's order to amend. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JAFAIN HARRIS, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1370-TWR-DDL CDCR # BG-5649, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR (1) FAILURE TO vs. STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 14 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) AND 1915A(b), 15 AND (2) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE FIDENCIO GUZMAN, G. ESCOBEDO, 16 JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, (ECF No. 5) 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff Daniel Jafain Harris, a state inmate proceeding pro se, 21 filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (see ECF No. 1), along with a 22 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (see ECF No. 2). The Court granted 23 Plaintiff’s IFP request and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply 24 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. (See generally ECF 25 No. 5 (“Order”).) In the same Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 26 complaint and cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s dismissal Order 27 within 45 days, or by February 28, 2025. (See id. at 5–10.) Plaintiff was also explicitly 28 cautioned that failure timely to respond to the Court’s dismissal Order by filing an amended 1 || complaint would result in the Court issuing a final order dismissing the action. (See id. at 2 11.) 3 As of the date of this Order, the Court has recetved no amended complaint or 4 ||communication from Plaintiff. (See generally Docket.) “The failure of plaintiff... to 5 ||respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 6 ||the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 7 || dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. 8 || Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss 9 ||a case for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order); see also Fed. R. Civ. 10 ||P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with the 11 || federal rules or court order). 12 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 13 || Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to prosecute this action. 14 || The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: March 26, 2025 — 17 [ od) (2 re 18 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe oe