Mackey v. People of the State of California

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-00931 · 2020-11-06 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Todd W. Robinson (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:24Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se civil rights complaint that had been previously dismissed with leave to amend, but for which the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, and certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.

What the court decided	The model
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute “Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 18, 2020 Order.”	agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park), failure to respond to a court's order to amend is properly met with dismissal. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is the standard sanction for failure to prosecute in this context, allowing the plaintiff to refile if they wish, though the underlying claim was already found deficient.
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. Section 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.”	agree with court The certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) is appropriate because the dismissal is based on procedural default (failure to prosecute/amend) and the underlying claim was already found to fail to state a claim. An appeal challenging the procedural dismissal would likely be frivolous or without merit, as the plaintiff had the opportunity to cure the defects and did not. The court's determination that an appeal would not be taken in good faith is consistent with the statutory standard.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute

“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 18, 2020 Order.”

agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park), failure to respond to a court's order to amend is properly met with dismissal. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is the standard sanction for failure to prosecute in this context, allowing the plaintiff to refile if they wish, though the underlying claim was already found deficient.

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. Section 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.”

agree with court
The certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) is appropriate because the dismissal is based on procedural default (failure to prosecute/amend) and the underlying claim was already found to fail to state a claim. An appeal challenging the procedural dismissal would likely be frivolous or without merit, as the plaintiff had the opportunity to cure the defects and did not. The court's determination that an appeal would not be taken in good faith is consistent with the statutory standard.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise and relies on well-established procedural rules and Ninth Circuit precedent. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order to amend as grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The certification of non-good-faith appeal is standard for such dismissals. There are no significant gaps in reasoning for a procedural dismissal of this nature.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ERNESTO MACKEY, Case No.: 3:20-CV-00931-TWR-KSC CDCR #C-56761 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. 1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 15 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 16 CALIFORNIA; WILLIAM D. MUDD, Judge Dept. 19; JEFFREY F. FRASER, 17 AND Judge of the Superior Ct.; AMALIA L.

18 MEZA, Judge of the Superior Ct.; CRAIG 2) DISMISSING FOR FAILURE TO N. TEOFILO, Psy. D., 19 PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Psychologist/Psychiatric, WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING 20 Defendants. AMENDMENT 21 22 23 David Ernesto Mackey (“Plaintiff”), a mentally disordered offender currently 24 civilly committed at Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California Penal Code Section 25 2972, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 26 (See ECF No. 1, at 4, 50-52.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. Procedural History 2 On August 18, 2020, the Court1 granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 3 (“IFP”) and dismissed his Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 4 granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (See ECF No. 4, at 8-9.) Plaintiff 5 was advised of the deficiencies in his Complaint and granted 45 days leave in which to file 6 an Amended Complaint fixing them. (See id.) 7 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before October 2, 2020. But to date, 8 Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint and has not requested an extension of time 9 in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 10 ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will 11 not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin 12 Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 13 II. Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 15 prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and his failure to prosecute pursuant to 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 18, 2020 18 Order. 19 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 20 faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 1 This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel. On September 28, 2020, it was 28 1 judgment of dismissal and close the file. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 ||Dated: November 5, 2020 —_—_ [5 1S bre 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 5 United States District Court 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28