Roberts v. Milles
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the status of the case after the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the thirty-day deadline previously set by the court. The court ordered the dismissal of the case with prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the file.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the case with prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's action in its entirety.” | agree with court The court previously dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted leave to amend with a specific deadline. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or appear in the action within that time. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may convert a dismissal without prejudice into a dismissal with prejudice if the plaintiff fails to take advantage of the opportunity to fix the complaint. The court's action follows this procedural rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard Ninth Circuit rule regarding the conversion of a dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court-ordered deadline to amend. The factual predicate (failure to file within 30 days) is clearly stated, and the legal authority cited is directly on point and binding.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Case No.: 22-CV-956 JLS (BLM)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 13 v. PREJUDICE 14 MATT MILLES; CALI OLSON; and US 15 BANK, Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 On August 26, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Tina Louise Roberts’s Amended 22 Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a 23 claim. See ECF No. 6. The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a new amended 24 complaint and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in the Court entering a 25 final Order dismissing the case for failure to state a claim, lack of subject-matter 26 jurisdiction, and failure to prosecute. See id. The thirty-day deadline has passed, but 27 Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint or otherwise appear in this action. Instead, 28 Plaintiff appears to have initiated another action based on similar, if not identical, claims. 1 || See Roberts v. Olson, No. 3:22-CV-1373 JLS (BLM), ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. filed Sept. 12, 2 ||}2022). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's action in its 3 |lentirety. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Ifa plaintiff does not 4 ||take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 5 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). This Order concludes the 6 || litigation in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: October 1 1, 2022 pe it. Jt, ithe 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28