Castro v. State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint, which it found failed to state a claim because it relied on criminal statutes without alleging facts establishing civil liability. The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint by July 21, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Amended complaint dismissed without prejudice“The amended complaint [Doc. No. 5] is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The order recites that the plaintiff cited criminal statutes that do not create civil liability and failed to allege facts connecting the defendants to the harm. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted must be dismissed. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the court provided a specific deadline and instructions for a final amendment, which is a standard and appropriate procedural mechanism in pro se litigation. |
Leave to file second amended complaint granted“Plaintiff shall have until July 21, 2022 to file a second amended complaint under this case number resolving the issues discussed above.” | agree with court Courts have discretion to allow amendments to a complaint, particularly in pro se cases, to ensure the plaintiff has a fair opportunity to state a claim. The court explicitly limited this to one final opportunity, which is a reasonable exercise of discretion to prevent endless amendment cycles while preserving the plaintiff's right to be heard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for dismissal, cites the controlling Ninth Circuit en banc authority regarding the duty to dismiss IFP complaints that fail to state a claim, and provides clear, specific instructions for the plaintiff to cure the deficiencies. The reasoning directly addresses the defects in the amended complaint (reliance on criminal statutes, lack of factual allegations for civil liability).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC RAY CASTRO; Case No.: 22-cv-802-CAB-MSB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 12 v. COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On June 7, 2022, this Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in 17 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). [Doc. No. 4.] The Court instructed Plaintiff that he could file an 19 amended complaint remedying the defects in his complaint as described in the June 7 order. 20 [Id.] On June 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. [Doc. No. 5.] 21 Upon review, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to resolve the issues highlighted 22 in the Court’s June 7 order. Plaintiff lists five government agency defendants and cites to 23 various sections of the United States Code that he alleges each defendant is “charged 24 for/with.” However, the United States Code provisions cited are all criminal statutes that 25 do not appear to relate to the facts alleged in the original complaint and do not authorize a 26 civil suit or create any civil liability. Beyond listing the criminal statutes under which he 27 attempts to bring suit, Plaintiff does not allege any additional facts explaining how the 28 named government entities are liable for his alleged harm. The amended complaint 1 || therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it must be dismissed. 2 || See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e)... 3 ||requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a 4 claim.”). 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 6 1. The amended complaint [Doc. No. 5] is DISMISSED without prejudice. 7 2. Plaintiff shall have until July 21, 2022 to file a second amended complaint under 8 this case number resolving the issues discussed above. The second amended 9 complaint shall supersede all prior complaints and must contain all factual 10 allegations and claims Plaintiff wishes to assert based on those allegations. The 11 second amended complaint may not rely on allegations stated in prior complaints. 12 3. No further opportunities to amend will be granted. 13 4. If Plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint by July 21, 2022, the Clerk 14 of the Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice and terminate the action. 15 It is SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: June 23, 2022 € 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28