Dears v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00012 · 2020-05-05 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:45Z · confidence high

The court dismissed a pro se civil rights action against federal officials for failing to state a claim, seeking damages from immune defendants, and failing to prosecute the case after the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. The court certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the clerk to enter final judgment.

What the court decided	The model
Dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, seeking monetary damages against immune defendants, and failure to prosecute. “Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted, for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and for failing to prosecute this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 4, 2020 Order.”	agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend, failed to do so, and failed to request an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such failure justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b). The substantive grounds (failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity) were previously identified in the March 4 order, and the dismissal without prejudice allows for potential re-filing if the plaintiff can cure the defects, though the current action is closed.
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 applied the standard for IFP appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Given the procedural nature of the dismissal (failure to prosecute) and the prior identification of substantive defects, a finding that an appeal would not be in good faith is a common and defensible judicial determination in this context.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim, seeking monetary damages against immune defendants, and failure to prosecute.

“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted, for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and for failing to prosecute this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 4, 2020 Order.”

agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally sound. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend, failed to do so, and failed to request an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such failure justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b). The substantive grounds (failure to state a claim and sovereign immunity) were previously identified in the March 4 order, and the dismissal without prejudice allows for potential re-filing if the plaintiff can cure the defects, though the current action is closed.

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 applied the standard for IFP appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Given the procedural nature of the dismissal (failure to prosecute) and the prior identification of substantive defects, a finding that an appeal would not be in good faith is a common and defensible judicial determination in this context.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the procedural rule regarding failure to prosecute (Rule 41(b)) based on the plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint after being given leave. It correctly cites the relevant statutes for the substantive dismissals (failure to state a claim and immunity) which were previously determined. The certification of IFP appeal is standard. The order is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural dismissal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOHNNY DEARS, Case No. 20-cv-00012-BAS-AGS 11 Booking No. 19748199, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 12 Plaintiff, FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM, FOR SEEKING MONETARY DAMAGES 13 v. AGAINST IMMUNE DEFENDANTS, AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SOCIAL 15 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff Johnny Dears, housed at the San Diego Central Jail 19 and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens 20 v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 399 (1971). 21 (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 22 On March 4, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 23 but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be 24 granted and for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was advised of the 26 pleading deficiencies and granted 45 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed 27 them. (Id. at 9–10.) 28 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before April 19, 2020. To date, 1 || Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint and has not requested an extension of time 2 ||in which to do so.! “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 3 || ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will 4 ||not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards □□ Marin 5 || Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 7 ||based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted, for 8 ||seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 11§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and for failing to prosecute this action pursuant to Fed. 10 ||R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 4, 2020 Order. 11 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 12 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 13 dismissal and close the file. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 , □□ 16 || DATED: May 5, 2020 (yidlug (Bohan 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Court’s March 4, 2020 Order was returned “undeliverable.” (ECF No. 4.) However, to date, Plaintiff has neither contacted the Court nor provided a notice of change of address. A review of the San Diego Sheriff's Department website, as well as the California Department of Corrections and 28 Rehabilitation inmate locator, indicates that Plaintiff is not housed under either authority. See https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wiji and https://inmate.locator.cdcr.ca.gov (websites last visited May 4, 2020).