Jones v. San Diego Sheriffs Dept.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se civil rights complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by a plaintiff who had already initiated a prior action against the same defendant for similar conditions of confinement. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to allow the plaintiff to amend the prior action to include the new claims, and denied the IFP motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Complaint dismissed without prejudice“The Court DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff to pursue the claims herein in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 25cv0779-BAS (KSC).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the new claims (May 2025 assault) are supplemental to the existing action (December 2024 assault) under Rule 15(d) because they arise from the same transaction/occurrence (conditions of confinement at George Bailey) and involve the same parties. Dismissing the duplicative action to consolidate claims into the first-filed case is a standard judicial economy measure. The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's right to assert the claims in the proper venue (the existing case). |
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied as moot“The Motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Because the complaint was dismissed, the underlying action in this docket no longer exists. Therefore, the request for IFP status in this specific case is moot. The plaintiff will need to seek IFP status in the prior case (25cv0779) where the claims will be pursued, or the prior case already has IFP status granted (as noted in the order: 'On August 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP in that case'). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies Rule 15(d) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Keith v. Volpe) to determine that the new claims are supplemental to the existing action. The court identifies the same pleading defect (naming a department rather than individuals) in both cases and directs the plaintiff to consolidate the claims in the first-filed case where he has already been given leave to amend. This promotes judicial economy and avoids duplicative litigation. The denial of the IFP motion as moot is a logical consequence of the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TERRELL MORENO JONES, Case No.: 25cv1892-BTM (MSB) BOOKING #24736966 13 ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff, 14 COMPLAINT WITHOUT vs. PREJUDICE TO PROCEED IN 15 SO.DIST.CA. CIVIL CASE NO.
16 25cv0779 AND DENYING MOTION SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S TO PROCEED IN FORMA 17 DEPARTMENT, PAUPERIS AS MOOT 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 Plaintiff Terrell Moreno Jones, proceeding pro se and detained at the George Bailey 22 Detention Facility in Santee, California, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 23 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1-2.) 24 Plaintiff alleges that the conditions of confinement at George Bailey, including the failure 25 of Defendant San Diego Sheriff’s Department to segregate violently mentally ill inmates 26 from other inmates, has led to his being assaulted on May 16, 2025, for the second time by 27 a mentally unstable inmate. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff is currently proceeding with a civil 28 rights action in this Court against the same defendant challenging the same conditions of 1 confinement at George Bailey which he alleges led to his initial assault by a mentally 2 unstable inmate on December 8, 2024. See Jones v. San Diego Sheriff’s Department, 3 Compl. filed 3/25/25 [ECF No. 1 at 3] in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 25cv0779-BAS 4 (KSC). On August 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP in that case 5 and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on or before October 6, 2025, after 6 notifying him of the defects of pleading. See id., Order filed 8/5/25 [ECF No. 5]. The 7 Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 8 and § 1915A(b) because the only named defendant, the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, 9 is not a proper defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and Plaintiff was instructed on how 10 to cure that pleading defect. Id. at 6-8. The instant action suffers from the same pleading 11 defect, in that the only named defendant in this case is the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, 12 a pleading defect which Plaintiff has been notified of and instructed on how to cure in his 13 first-filed case. Id. 14 Because the claims in this action are supplemental to the claims in that first-filed 15 case within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d), the Court dismisses this action without 16 prejudice to Plaintiff to proceed with his claims in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 25cv0779- 17 BAS (KSC). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d) (defining “a supplemental pleading [as] setting out 18 any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be 19 supplemented.”); Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1988) (for purposes of Rule 20 15(d), a new claim can be added if there is “some relationship” between the new claim and 21 the “subject of the original action.”); see also id. at 473 (the use of supplemental pleadings 22 is “favored” where it increases judicial economy by enabling a court to award complete 23 relief in one action “to avoid the cost, delay and waste of separate actions which must be 24 separately tried and prosecuted” and “ought to be allowed as of course.”); Adams v. Cal. 25 Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the 26 second action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief 27 sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other 28 grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). l Conclusion and Order 2 The Court DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff to pursue the 3 || claims herein in So.Dist.Ca. Civil Case No. 25cv0779-BAS (KSC). The Motion to proceed 4 ||IFP is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close the case and enter judgment 5 || accordingly. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: August 11, 2025 3 ‘ 8 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee