Terrell Moreno Jones v. San Diego Sheriff’s Dep’t
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil rights complaint that had been previously dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, but for which the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action with prejudice“The Court DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE, for Plaintiffs failure state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s August 5, 2025 Order.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The plaintiff was given a specific deadline to amend the complaint to cure deficiencies identified in a prior order. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. Additionally, because the prior dismissal was without prejudice specifically to allow amendment, and the plaintiff failed to take that opportunity, the current dismissal with prejudice is appropriate to prevent endless litigation of a deficient claim. The court also correctly noted the failure to state a claim as a basis, consistent with the initial screening. |
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 certification is appropriate given that the dismissal is based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim, which are generally not considered 'substantial' for the purposes of an IFP appeal unless the dismissal was clearly erroneous or the plaintiff can show a substantial question of law. Since the plaintiff simply failed to act, the certification is standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture. It correctly cites the relevant statute for the initial screening and the Ninth Circuit precedent for the failure to prosecute. The reasoning is sufficient for a pro se case where the plaintiff simply failed to comply with a deadline.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRELL MORENO JONES, Case No. 25-cv-00779-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND § 1915A(b)(1) 14 SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEP’T, AND FOR FAILING TO 15 Defendant. PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING 16 AMENDMENT 17 18 Plaintiff Terrell Moreno Jones, a detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 19 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”). (See ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 21 On August 5, 2025, the Court granted Jone’s IFP motion and dismissed the case 22 without prejudice and with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), § 23 1915A(b)(1). (ECF No. 5.) Jones was given until October 4, 2025, to file a First Amended 24 Complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the August 5, 2025 Order. (Id.) 25 To date, Jones has not filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of 26 time. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by 27 amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 28 1 || met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 2 || 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 3 The Court DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE, for Plaintiffs failure 4 state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for his failure to prosecute as 5 ||required by Court’s August 5, 2025 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP 6 || appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS 7 || the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ~ 10 || DATED: October 30, 2025 (yi. (Doha H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28