Sanchez v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court dismissed a pro se prisoner's civil rights action for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute after the plaintiff failed to amend his complaint within the time allowed by a prior order. The court certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the entry of final judgment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute.“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ai1) and 1915A(b)(1) and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s January 15, 2025 Order.” | agree with court The dismissal for failure to prosecute is supported by the plaintiff's failure to respond to a specific court order granting leave to amend, which constitutes a valid basis for dismissal under Rule 41(b) as cited in Edwards v. Marin Park. The dismissal for failure to state a claim is supported by the prior finding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, which is a facial defect. The court provided notice and an opportunity to cure, satisfying due process requirements for a pro se litigant. |
Certification that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.“The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)” | agree with court The court is authorized to certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal is not taken in good faith. While the order does not provide a detailed analysis of why the appeal would not be in good faith, this is a common procedural step in dismissals for failure to prosecute or obvious legal deficiencies (like statute of limitations) where the plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial question of law. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the screening statutes for prisoner litigation and Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. It relies on the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards v. Marin Park) for the dismissal based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order. The footnote adequately addresses the procedural history regarding the plaintiff's address change and the court's efforts to ensure notice, mitigating any due process concerns regarding the dismissal for failure to prosecute. The certification of non-good-faith appeal is a standard procedural conclusion in this context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN SANCHEZ, Case No: 24-cv-01591-BAS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 14 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; §§ 1915(e)(2) AND 1915A(b) AND CAMACHO, Correctional Officer; CDCR; 15 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE IN JEFF MACOMBER, Secretary; DOES 1- COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 16 20, Correctional Officers; DOES 21-50, ORDER Medical Staff; DOES 51-75, 17 Administrative Staff, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 In this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pro se Plaintiff Juan 22 Sanchez alleged correctional officials at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility violated 23 his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated there in 2019. (See ECF No. 9-1 at 5‒ 24 8.) On January 15, 2025, the Court granted Sanchez’s motions for leave to proceed in 25 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and to amend his complaint but screened his amended pleading 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and dismissed it as barred by the statute of 27 limitations. (See ECF No. 10.) While the untimeliness of Sanchez’s claims was clear from 28 the face of his amended complaint, the Court notified him of his pleading deficiencies and 1 |} granted him 45 days leave in which to amend once more. (/d. at 10-11.) The Court 2 || cautioned Sanchez, however, that his failure to act would result in dismissal of this action 3 || both for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute. (/d. at 11-12.) 4 To date, Sanchez has failed to comply with the Court’s Order and has not requested 5 extension of time in which to do so.! “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond 6 || to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court 7 [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 8 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 11 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 12 |} §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ai1) and 1915A(b)(1) and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s 13 January 15, 2025 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be 14 ||taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk of the 15 || Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 A | □ 18 || DATED: April 23, 2025 19 H¢n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 20 31 The Court’s January 15, 2025 Order, which was mailed to Sanchez at the address he provided when filing this case—Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”)—was returned as undeliverable by the U.S. 22 || Postal Service on February 3, 2025. (See ECF No. 11.) Because the return envelope contained a notation of “MCSP” and indicated the mail had been “refused” at SVSP, see id. at 2, the Court presumed it was 23 || because Sanchez had since been transferred to Mule Creek State Prison. Therefore, in an abundance of 24 caution, the Court directed the Clerk to resend a copy of its Order to Sanchez at MCSP on February 7, 2025. (See Staff Notes dated 2/7/25.) The docket does not reflect that the February 7, 2025 remailing 25 || was refused or returned undeliverable. Nevertheless, Sanchez has not filed a notice of change of address at any time before or since the Court’s initial mailing was returned undelivered on February 3, 2025. See 26 ||S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 83.11.b (“A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to current address. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the Clerk at the plaintiff’s last 27 designated address is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and 28 opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”).