Hudson v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00196 · 2022-07-08 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:26Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's failure to file a First Amended Complaint within the 45-day deadline set by a previous screening order. The court dismissed the civil action for 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 prosecute and failure to state a claim. “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 as required by Court’s May 3, 2022 Order.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a court's order to amend or indicate refusal to do so warrants dismissal. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park supports the use of Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order notes the plaintiff did not request an extension. While the order mentions the previous dismissal was for failure to state a claim, the current dismissal is explicitly grounded in the failure to prosecute the amended complaint as required by the prior order. The reasoning is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding pro se litigants and court orders.
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 certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) is a standard procedural step when dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to state a claim where no substantial rights are at stake. Given the procedural nature of the dismissal (failure to file an amended complaint), the certification is appropriate.

What the court decided

The model

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

“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 as required by Court’s May 3, 2022 Order.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the principle that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a court's order to amend or indicate refusal to do so warrants dismissal. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park supports the use of Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order notes the plaintiff did not request an extension. While the order mentions the previous dismissal was for failure to state a claim, the current dismissal is explicitly grounded in the failure to prosecute the amended complaint as required by the prior order. The reasoning is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding pro se litigants and court orders.

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 certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) is a standard procedural step when dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to state a claim where no substantial rights are at stake. Given the procedural nature of the dismissal (failure to file an amended complaint), the certification is appropriate.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's previous order to amend the complaint within the specified timeframe. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards v. Marin Park) for the proposition that such failure warrants dismissal. The statutory citations for the initial screening dismissal and the IFP appeal certification are also correct. The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural default.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY DANIEL HUDSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-0196-CAB-DEB Booking No. 21149533, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL vs. ACTION FOR FAILING 14 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEP’T, 15 WITH COURT ORDER Defendant. 16 17 18 19 I. Introduction 20 On February 10, 2022, Jeffrey Daniel Hudson (“Plaintiff” or “Hudson”), who is 21 proceeding pro se, was housed at the George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) and filed 22 a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did 23 not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion 24 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. 25 On May 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 26 and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(b)(1). ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days from the date of the 28 dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. at 7. 1 Discussion 2 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before June 18, 2022. To date, 3 ||he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so.' “The 4 || failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending 5 complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the 6 || sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 7 || 2004). 8 Conclusion and Order 9 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 10 || Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 11 |/U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by 12 || Court’s May 3, 2022 Order. 13 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 14 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 15 || dismissal and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: July 8, 2022 € 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 |} 27 The Court’s May 3, 2022 Order was returned “undeliverable” and it appears that Plaintiff was released 28 | rrovide his current addres as required by the Courts eal les,