Zavala v. San Diego Sheriff

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01104 · 2021-11-09 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:46Z · confidence high

The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that had been previously dismissed with leave to amend, but 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 for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. “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)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) for the reasons set forth in the Court’s June 2021 Order, and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s Order.”	agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline. The plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to amend and did not request an extension. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend warrants dismissal. The court also relies on the prior order's finding of failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
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) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.”	agree with court The court is authorized to certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. While the order does not provide a detailed analysis of why the appeal lacks merit, it is a standard procedural step following a dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim in a pro se case. The decision follows from the dismissal.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute.

“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)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) for the reasons set forth in the Court’s June 2021 Order, and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s Order.”

agree with court
The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously granted leave to amend with a specific deadline. The plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order to amend and did not request an extension. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend warrants dismissal. The court also relies on the prior order's finding of failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

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

agree with court
The court is authorized to certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. While the order does not provide a detailed analysis of why the appeal lacks merit, it is a standard procedural step following a dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim in a pro se case. The decision follows from the dismissal.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sufficient. It correctly identifies the procedural history (prior dismissal with leave to amend), the plaintiff's failure to comply (no amendment, no extension request), and applies the correct legal standard (Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute, supported by Ninth Circuit precedent). It also correctly invokes the statutory authority for dismissing IFP cases that fail to state a claim. The certification of non-good-faith appeal is a standard procedural conclusion.

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 DANNY ZAVALA, Case No. 3:21-cv-01104-GPC-RBM Booking No. 21103200, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL vs. ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE 14 A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING SAN DIEGO SHERIFF, 15 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Defendants. WITH COURT ORDER 16 17 18 19 20 I. Introduction 21 On June 11, 2021, Danny Arroyo Zavala (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, was 22 housed at San Diego Central Jail and filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 23 § 1983 in this Court. (See ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required 24 by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF No. 2.) 26 The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissed 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and 28 1 |} granted him sixty (60) days from the date of the dismissal Order to file a First Amended 2 || Complaint. (See ECF No. 3.) 3 ||. Discussion 4 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before August 21, 2021. To 5 || date, he has failed to amend, and has not requested another extension of time in which to 6 || do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum-—either by 7 ||amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 8 with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 9 || 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 Conclusion and Order 11 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 12 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 13 |/U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) for the reasons set forth in the Court’s June 14 2021 Order, and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s 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: November 9, 2021 =< 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe