Mondragon v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-01574 · 2021-02-02 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Dana M. Sabraw (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:14Z · confidence high

The court dismissed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint for failing to state a claim and for failing to prosecute after the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint as ordered. The court 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 failing to state a claim and failing 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 26, 2020 Order.”	agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend, and the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such failure justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b). The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile if a valid claim exists.
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 statutory standard for IFP appeals. Given the procedural nature of the dismissal (failure to prosecute) and the prior opportunity to amend, the certification is a standard judicial determination in this context.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failing to state a claim and failing 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 26, 2020 Order.”

agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend, and the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such failure justifies dismissal under Rule 41(b). The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile if a valid claim exists.

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 statutory standard for IFP appeals. Given the procedural nature of the dismissal (failure to prosecute) and the prior opportunity to amend, the certification is a standard judicial determination in this context.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant statutes and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the specific procedural failure (failure to file an amended complaint after being given leave). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on non-compliance with a prior court order.

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 JOSE LOPEZ MONDRAGON, Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG Booking No. 20921587, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM 15 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) GORE; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES; S.D. AND § 1915A(b); AND 16 COUNTY MEDICAL PROVIDERS, 17 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 18 WITH COURT ORDER 19 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 20 21 22 23 Jose Lopez Mondragon (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Vista Detention Facility, 24 and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25 13, 2020. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 26 I. Procedural History 27 On August 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be 1 || granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff 2 || was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted leave in which to file an Amended 3 ||Complaint that fixed them. (/d. at 7-8.) 4 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before October 26, 2020. But to date, 5 || Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time 6 which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 7 || ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not 8 || do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 9 || 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 Conclusion and Order 11 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 12 ||based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted 13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute 14 || pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 26, 2020 Order. 15 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 16 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 17 dismissal and close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: February 2, 2021 20 ns my. L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2