Gonzalez v. Chao
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint after a prior dismissal without prejudice. The court dismissed the action in its entirety without further leave to amend and directed the Clerk to enter final judgment.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and her failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with Court’s October 27, 2021 Order.” | agree with court The court applied the correct procedural mechanism (Rule 41(b)) for failure to prosecute after a deadline to amend had passed. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend warrants dismissal. The record recites that the plaintiff was given leave to amend, a specific deadline, and failed to file or request an extension. The decision follows from the law and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's failure to comply with a prior court order to amend the complaint within a set timeframe. It relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park) to support the dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The reasoning directly addresses the motion (or lack thereof, as this is a sua sponte or administrative dismissal based on non-compliance) and the applicable rule.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELICA GRACIA GONZALEZ, Case No.: 20-cv-530-GPC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO 14 PETE BUTTIGIEG, Secretary PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Department of Transportation, 15 WITH COURT ORDERS Defendant. REQUIRING AMENDMENT 16 17 Plaintiff Angelica Gracia Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed the 18 instant civil action, alleging hostile work environment, gender discrimination, and 19 retaliation claims against her former employer, the Department of Transportation 20 (“DOT”). ECF No. 1. On October 27, 2021, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to 21 Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 23). ECF No. 29 (“Dismissal Order”). 22 This dismissal was without prejudice, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended 23 Complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order. Plaintiff was 24 ordered to file any Amended Complaint on or before November 22, 2021. Ninety days 25 have passed since the Court’s Dismissal Order, and more than sixty days have elapsed 26 since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due. However, Plaintiff has not filed an 27 1 || Amended Complaint, nor has she requested an extension of time in which to do so. See 2 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff 3 || eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or 4 || indicating to the court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a 5 || Rule 41(b) dismissal.”’) 6 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further 7 || leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 8 || granted, and her failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with 9 Court’s October 27, 2021 Order. ECF No. 29. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter 10 |/a final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 26, 2022 72 13 Hon. athe Cae 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20-cv-530-GPC