Mitchell v. CDCR/AG

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01781 · 2022-02-10 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:37Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set in a prior order. The court dismissed the civil action with prejudice 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 with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim “The Court DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for his failure to prosecute required by Court’s November 9, 2021 Order.”	agree with court The court applied the standard from Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004), which holds that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend or indicate refusal to do so warrants dismissal under Rule 41(b). The record shows the plaintiff was given until January 4, 2022, to amend, and more than a month had passed without an amendment or extension request. Dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate sanction for failure to prosecute after a specific deadline has passed.
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 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a district court may certify that an appeal is not taken in good faith if the appeal is frivolous or is brought for the purpose of delay. Dismissing a case for failure to prosecute after a clear deadline is a procedural ruling that generally does not present a non-frivolous basis for appeal, making the certification appropriate.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the civil action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim

“The Court DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for his failure to prosecute required by Court’s November 9, 2021 Order.”

agree with court
The court applied the standard from Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004), which holds that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend or indicate refusal to do so warrants dismissal under Rule 41(b). The record shows the plaintiff was given until January 4, 2022, to amend, and more than a month had passed without an amendment or extension request. Dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate sanction for failure to prosecute after a specific deadline has passed.

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
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a district court may certify that an appeal is not taken in good faith if the appeal is frivolous or is brought for the purpose of delay. Dismissing a case for failure to prosecute after a clear deadline is a procedural ruling that generally does not present a non-frivolous basis for appeal, making the certification appropriate.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural history, cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority for dismissal due to failure to prosecute, and applies it to the specific facts of the missed deadline. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JEROME MITCHELL, Case No. 3:21-cv-01781-BAS-BLM CDCR #AL-1076, 11 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 12 ACTION PURSUANT vs. TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND 13 § 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING CDCR/AG, et al., 14 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER 15 Defendants. REQUIRING AMENDMENT 16 17 On October 15, 2021, Jerome Mitchell (“Plaintiff” or “Mitchell”), currently 18 incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento, located in Sacramento, California 19 (“CSP-SAC”) and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1914(a). Instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2.) 23 On November 9, 2021, the Court granted Mitchell’s IFP motion and dismissed the 24 case without prejudice and with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 25 § 1915A(b)(1). (ECF No. 3.) Mitchell was given until January 4, 2022, to file a First 26 Amended Complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the November 9, 2021 27 Order. Id. 28 More than a month has elapsed since January 4, 2022, but to date, Mitchell has not | || filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of time. “The failure of the plaintiff 2 || eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—ceither by amending the complaint or by 3 || indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 4 ||41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 The Court DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE, for Plaintiff's failure 6 || to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for his failure to prosecute 7 required by Court’s November 9, 2021 Order. 8 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 9 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 10 || dismissal and close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 / 13 || DATED: February 10, 2022 (pil A (Lyohaa 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 □□