(PC) Outman v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of the case after the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline set in a prior order. The court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action in its entirety“Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s action in its entirety and instructs the Clerk to close the case.” | agree with court The court previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or a motion for an extension by the deadline. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may convert a dismissal of a complaint to a dismissal of the entire action if the plaintiff fails to take advantage of the opportunity to amend. The court's decision follows this procedural rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the procedural rule from Lira v. Herrera. The record establishes that the plaintiff was given leave to amend with a specific deadline and failed to comply. The court's decision to dismiss the action is a standard procedural consequence of this failure.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ROBERT H. OUTMAN, Case No.: 3:18-cv-02101-BAS-KSC CDCR #P-79939, 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; 16 S. SANCHEZ, Captain; WILLIAMS, 17 Correctional Counselor I; C. YORK, CCI; M. VILLATUERLE, CCII; B. VOGEL, 18 CCI; B. OLIVARRIA, Appeals 19 Coordinator; B. SELF; K. RODRIGUEZ, Psychologist; S. BAHRO, Ph.D 20 Psychologist; JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10, 21 Supervisory Mental Health Staff; JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10, 22 Custody Staff, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 Plaintiff Robert H. Outman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 27 pauperis. He brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prison officials and 28 employees. On June 11, 2019, Defendants B. Vogel, R. Olivarria, S. Bahro, S. Searles 1 || (formerly Sanchez), K. Rodriguez, B. Self, D. Paramo, M. Villafuerte, and C. York moved 2 dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them. (ECF No. 22.) Magistrate Judge Karen S. 3 ||Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court 4 || grant the motion to dismiss as to all of the Defendants named in the Complaint. (ECF No. 5 || 32.) 6 On December 19, 2019, the Court issued an order adopting Judge Crawford’s R&R 7 granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 33.) The Court dismissed 8 Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety but granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended 9 ||Complaint. In its Order, the Court stated: “If Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, he 10 || must file the First Amended Complaint no later than January 21, 2020. The Court 11 || warns Plaintiff that a failure to file a First Amended Complaint by January 21, 2020, 12 || will result in the Court dismissing this action and closing the case.” (/d. at 3.) 13 This deadline has passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or a 14 || motion requesting an extension of time. “If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the 15 || opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint 16 dismissal of the entire action.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 17 || Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s action in its entirety and instructs the Clerk to 18 || close the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 /\ yy 21 DATED: January 31, 2020 (ying (Byphan. 6 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oo