Richardson v. San Diego Sheriff's Office
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil rights complaint that had previously been dismissed with leave to amend, but where the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. The court dismissed the action in its entirety 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 in its entirety“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Richardson’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s March 15, 2021 Order.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline and warning. The plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to amend or request an extension. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), the court has authority to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Additionally, the failure to prosecute after a specific deadline and warning supports dismissal under Rule 41(b) principles as cited in Edwards v. Marin Park. The conversion of the earlier dismissal with leave to amend into a final dismissal of the action is a standard and appropriate sanction for non-compliance. |
Certification that an IFP 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 is required to certify whether an appeal would be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Given that the dismissal is based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint that was already found deficient, and the plaintiff did not even request an extension, it is reasonable to conclude that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order does not provide a detailed analysis of why an appeal would be frivolous, but the procedural posture (failure to prosecute after warning) strongly supports the certification. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant statutes (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), § 1915A(b)) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (Lira, Edwards) to support the dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. The procedural history is clearly stated, showing the plaintiff was given notice and an opportunity to cure, which he failed to do. The certification of IFP appeal is consistent with the procedural outcome. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this type of procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL D. RICHARDSON, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02435-DMS-JLB Booking #19731938, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT TO v. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND 14 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) AND FOR SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S OFFICE; 15 FAILING TO PROSECUTE GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION; IN COMPLIANCE WITH 16 A. APEZ, Deputy/Corrections (SDSO); COURT ORDER OFFICER H., Deputy/Corrections 17 (SDSO); CREW SHIFT, 18 Deputy/Corrections (SDSO), 19 Defendants. 20 21 On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel D. Richardson, incarcerated at the County 22 of San Diego Sheriff Department’s George F. Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”), and 23 proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 24 Compl., ECF No. 1. While short on specifics, Richardson’s Complaint named the County 25 Sheriff’s Office, GBDF, two Sheriff’s Department deputies, and an entire “Crew Shift” 26 as Defendants, and alleged they committed acts of racial discrimination and medical 27 malpractice. Id. at 2‒5. Richardson sought injunctive relief related to his criminal case, as 28 well as $53,000 in both general and punitive damages. Id. at 7. 1 Richardson also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. 3 I. Procedural History 4 On March 15, 2021, the Court granted Richardson permission to proceed IFP, but 5 dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 4. Richardson was notified of his pleading 7 deficiencies, and was ordered to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them within 60 8 days. Id. at 5‒10. Richardson was also warned his failure to amend would result in 9 dismissal. Id. at 10‒11, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 10 plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 11 may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”). 12 Richardson has not filed an Amended Complaint, more than three months have 13 passed since the Court issued its March 15, 2021 Order, and he has not filed a request for 14 an extension of time in which to amend. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 15 respond to the court’s ultimatum‒‒either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 16 the court that [he] will not do so‒‒is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 17 dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 II. Conclusion and Order 19 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 20 Richardson’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and his failure to prosecute as required by the 22 Court’s March 15, 2021 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would 23 not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to 24 enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 22, 2021 ___________________________________ 27 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 28