Heizelman v. Chase Bank
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil action where the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint after a prior dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the action in its entirety without 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 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” | agree with court The court previously dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted leave to amend. The plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or seek an extension within the deadline. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. The cited authority, Edwards v. Marin Park, supports dismissal when a plaintiff fails to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend. The dismissal is procedurally sound based on the plaintiff's inaction. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural history (prior dismissal for failure to state a claim with leave to amend) and the plaintiff's failure to comply with the deadline. It cites the appropriate rule (Rule 41(b)) and binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park) to support the dismissal for failure to prosecute. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the basis for the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBET HEIZELMAN, Case No.: 22-cv-1676-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO 14 CHASE BANK, PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 15 Defendant. WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT 16 17 On February 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 18 pauperis and sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). ECF No. 4. The Court directed Plaintiff to file 20 an amended complaint on or before March 17, 2023. Id. Four months have passed since 21 dismissal and nearly three months have passed since Plaintiff’s amended complaint was 22 due. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of 23 time to file one. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The 24 failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by 25 amending the complaint or indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 26 met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). 27 1 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further 2 || leave to amend based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 3 || granted and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4 Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment of dismissal and to close 5 || the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: June 12, 2023 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-cv-1676-GPC-AHG