Robinson v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of a civil rights action where the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension after a prior order granting leave to amend. The court dismissed the action in its entirety without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 7, 2023 order.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The record establishes that the plaintiff was given leave to amend with a specific deadline, failed to file an amended complaint, and failed to request an extension. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such failure to comply with a court's order to amend supports dismissal of the entire action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the specific prior order granting leave to amend, notes the expiration of the deadline and the lack of an extension request, and applies the correct Ninth Circuit authorities to support dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The reasoning directly addresses the procedural default.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYVONE ROBINSON, Case No.: 22-cv-01401-GPC-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO 14 J. GALLEGOS, Correctional Counselor, PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE FRANK SHARPE, Classification and 15 WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING Parole Representative, AMENDMENT 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Rayvone Robinson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 19 filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) 20 On March 7, 2023, this Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss for 21 failure to state a claim with leave to file an amended complaint on or before May 5, 2023. 22 (Dkt. No. 16.) Almost ninety days have passed since the Court’s dismissal order, and 28 23 days have elapsed since Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due. Plaintiff has not filed an 24 amended complaint, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do so. See 25 Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff 26 eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or 27 1 || indicating to the court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a 2 || Rule 41(b) dismissal.’’) 3 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further 4 || leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 5 || and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s 6 ||March 7, 2023 order. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 7 || plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 8 convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). The Court 9 || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: June 2, 2023 = } Caste (AO 12 Hon. athe Cade 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-cv-01401-GPC-DEB