Cavalier v. Newsom

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-01615 · 2021-08-05 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Michael M. Anello (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:56Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that had previously been dismissed with leave to amend, but the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite multiple extensions. The court dismissed the action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute, and certified that an 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 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s December 11, 2020, December 31, 2020, February 26, 2021, and April 20, 2021 Orders.”	agree with court The dismissal is supported by the procedural history recited in the order. The court previously granted leave to amend, the plaintiff received three extensions, and ultimately failed to file a compliant amended complaint or seek further extensions. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, failure to comply with a court's order to amend is properly met with dismissal. The court also cites the underlying failure to state a claim, which was established in the prior order. The reasoning is consistent with the law and the record.
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 certification is a standard procedural step when dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to state a claim where the issues are not debatable. The order does not provide specific reasoning for why the appeal would not be in good faith, but this is common in such dismissals. The decision follows from the dismissal.

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 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s December 11, 2020, December 31, 2020, February 26, 2021, and April 20, 2021 Orders.”

agree with court
The dismissal is supported by the procedural history recited in the order. The court previously granted leave to amend, the plaintiff received three extensions, and ultimately failed to file a compliant amended complaint or seek further extensions. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, failure to comply with a court's order to amend is properly met with dismissal. The court also cites the underlying failure to state a claim, which was established in the prior order. The reasoning is consistent with the law and the record.

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 certification is a standard procedural step when dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to state a claim where the issues are not debatable. The order does not provide specific reasoning for why the appeal would not be in good faith, but this is common in such dismissals. The decision follows from the dismissal.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for dismissal for failure to prosecute. It cites the relevant Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards v. Marin Park) for the proposition that failure to comply with an order to amend warrants dismissal. It also references Lopez v. Smith to show that the court fulfilled its duty to grant leave to amend. The procedural history is clearly stated, showing multiple extensions were granted and the plaintiff failed to comply. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the basis for dismissal.

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 ROBERT THOMAS CAVALIER, Case No. 20cv1615-MMA-DEB CDCR #E-98747, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT vs. TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND 14 § 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Defendants. WITH COURT ORDERS 16 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 17 18 Plaintiff Robert Thomas Cavalier, incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 19 Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”) in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, 21 Plaintiff claimed the Governor of California, a former Secretary of the California 22 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Director of the Board of Parole 23 Hearings (“BPH”), and BPH Commissioner Randy Grounds violated his Eighth and 24 Fourteenth Amendment rights during a September 6, 2019 parole suitability hearing. See 25 “Compl.,” Doc. No. 1 at 1‒6. 26 I. Procedural History 27 On December 11, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, but 28 dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 7. The Court granted Plaintiff 45 days 2 leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that corrected his pleading deficiencies. 3 See id. at 21‒22; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130‒31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 5 pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) 6 (citation omitted)). 7 Plaintiff has since been granted three separate and generous extensions of time in 8 which to file his Amended Complaint, which was last ordered due by June 14, 2021. See 9 Doc. Nos. 9, 11, 13. Almost two months have elapsed since that time, but to date 10 Plaintiff has failed to amend in response to the Court’s repeated Orders, and has not 11 sought any additional extensions of time in which to comply.1 “The failure of the 12 plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint 13 or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a 14 Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 II. Conclusion and Order 16 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 17 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by 19 Court’s December 11, 2020, December 31, 2020, February 26, 2021, and April 20, 2021 20 Orders. 21 // 22 // 23 24 25 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted a document to RJD library officials for electronic filing on May 17, 2021, but the Court rejected it, returned it to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail on May 18, 2021, and directed 26 him to properly re-file his Amended Complaint with the Clerk of the Court via U.S. Mail on or before June 14, 2021. See Doc. Nos. 14, 14-1. S.D. Cal. General Order 653A permits e-filing from RJD only 27 for “initial filings by plaintiffs, defined as the complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis[,] … a motion seeking relief from [GO 653A], [or] a motion to exceed the page limits (initial documents.” 28 1 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 2 || faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 3 || judgment of dismissal and close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || DATE: August 5, 2021 Vth Lh -{ phktr 6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee