Cowan v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00914 · 2022-12-09 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Dana M. Sabraw (author)

Analysis

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

The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that had been previously dismissed with leave to amend, but the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. The court ordered the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim, 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 as required by Court’s July 21, 2022 Order.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the authority 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 is properly sanctioned with a Rule 41(b) dismissal. The record indicates the plaintiff was given 45 days to amend, failed to do so, and did not request an extension. The court also cited the statutory grounds for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, which was the basis of the initial dismissal. The decision follows from the law and the recited record.
Certification that an IFP 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 court exercised its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) to certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. This is a standard procedural step in pro se prisoner cases where the court determines the appeal lacks merit. The order does not provide detailed reasoning for this specific certification, but it is a permissible exercise of discretion given the dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim.

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 as required by Court’s July 21, 2022 Order.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the authority 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 is properly sanctioned with a Rule 41(b) dismissal. The record indicates the plaintiff was given 45 days to amend, failed to do so, and did not request an extension. The court also cited the statutory grounds for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim, which was the basis of the initial dismissal. The decision follows from the law and the recited record.

Certification that an IFP 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 court exercised its statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) to certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. This is a standard procedural step in pro se prisoner cases where the court determines the appeal lacks merit. The order does not provide detailed reasoning for this specific certification, but it is a permissible exercise of discretion given the dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim.

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 precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park) for the proposition that such failure warrants a Rule 41(b) dismissal. It also correctly cites the statutory provisions for dismissing prisoner civil rights actions that fail to state a claim. The certification of an IFP appeal is a standard and permissible action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The reasoning directly answers the procedural default with the right authorities.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD L. COWAN, II, Case No. 3:22-cv-0914-DMS-WVG Booking No. 21135745, 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 GALLAGOS, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 I. Introduction 20 On June 21, 2022, Richard L. Cowan, II (“Plaintiff” or “Cowan”), who is proceeding 21 pro se, was housed at the South Bay Detention Facility and filed a civil rights complaint 22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil 23 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 24 Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. 25 On July 21, 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). See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days from the date of 28 the dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint. See id. at 9-10. 1 Discussion 2 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before September 6, 2022. To 3 || date, he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. 4 |The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by 5 ||amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 6 with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 7 || 1065 (9th Cir. 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 July 21, 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: December 9, 2022 > 18 a Yn: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 19 United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe