McCoy v. Le
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint regarding alleged medical malpractice and, after previously granting leave to amend, found that 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 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), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 25, 2022 Order (ECF No. 9).” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The court previously identified specific pleading deficiencies and granted a deadline to amend. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may dismiss the entire action when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order to amend a complaint. The court correctly applied Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and the screening statutes for the underlying failure to state a claim. |
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 The court has the authority to certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal is not taken in good faith. While the order does not provide a detailed analysis of why an appeal would be frivolous, this is a common procedural step in pro se prisoner cases where the underlying claims have already been found to fail to state a claim and the plaintiff has failed to prosecute. The certification is a discretionary determination that is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court's decision is consistent with the dismissal of the action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for dismissing an action when a plaintiff fails to amend a complaint after being given leave to do so. The court clearly states the procedural history, the deadline given, and the plaintiff's failure to act. The legal basis for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and the screening statutes is sound. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICKY EUGENE McCOY, Case No. 21-cv-01755-BAS-AHG CDCR #BN-6712, 10 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 11 ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE vs. A CLAIM PURSUANT 12 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND PHA C. LE, DO; KERI L. KONDON, 13 § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING MD; PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER, TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 14 Defendants. WITH COURT ORDER 15 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 16 17 Plaintiff Ricky Eugene McCoy, incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and 18 proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 8, 19 2021. (See Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claimed that two doctors employed by the 20 Palomar Medical Center in Escondido, California, failed to provide him adequate medical 21 attention when he was taken into police custody and then hospitalized because he reported 22 to an officer that he had placed fentanyl in his rectum. (Id. at 2, 3.) He sought $20,000 in 23 compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 7.) 24 I. Procedural History 25 On November 22, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s initial motion to proceed in 26 forma pauperis (“IFP”) because he failed to include the trust account statements required 27 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (See ECF No. 6.) The Court granted him leave to correct the 28 omission. (Id.) Plaintiff later filed a renewed motion, and on March 25, 2022, the Court 1 || granted him leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim 2 upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). 3 ECF No. 9.) The Court advised Plaintiff of his pleading deficiencies and granted him 4 days—or until May 25, 2022—+to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. 5 || Ud. at 6-9.) The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the Court’s 6 || Order by filing an amended complaint within that time, the Court would dismiss his case. 7 at 10-11, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff 8 || does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert 9 || the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)). 10 Two months have passed since the Court issued its March 22, 2022 Order, and 11 ||nearly two weeks have come and gone since Plaintiff's amended complaint was due. But 12 || to date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and has not requested an extension 13 || of time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 14 || ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will 15 do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin 16 || Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Conclusion and Order 18 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 19 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 20 || U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)ai) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. 21 ||R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 25, 2022 Order (ECF No. 9). The 22 || Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 24 || close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || DATED: June 7, 2022 ( ill □□□ Ayphan A 28 United States District Judge