Alonso v. Quan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Alonso v. Quan (2025-07-17) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's 'Response' filed after a prior order dismissed his civil rights complaint for judicial immunity and failure to identify constitutional violations, while granting him thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend. The court denied the request for reconsideration and dismissed the action in its entirety without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the May 18, 2023 Order dismissing the Complaint.“To the extent that the Response requests reconsideration of the Court’s May 18, 2023, Order dismissing the Complaint, Plaintiff's request is denied because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error and has not identified any other basis for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration under Ninth Circuit precedent, requiring a showing of clear error, newly discovered evidence, or intervening change in law. The plaintiff's filing merely restated prior allegations without providing new evidence or legal argument, failing to meet the high threshold for this extraordinary remedy. |
Dismissal of the action in its entirety without prejudice.“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.” | agree with court The dismissal follows logically from the prior order which granted the plaintiff thirty days to file a motion for leave to amend. The docket reflects that this deadline passed without the required filing. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural consequence when a plaintiff fails to timely comply with a court's order to amend or move for leave to amend, preserving the right to refile if a proper amended complaint is filed in a new action or if leave is granted in a new proceeding. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the nature of the plaintiff's filing as a request for reconsideration rather than a motion for leave to amend. It applies the correct legal standard for reconsideration from binding Ninth Circuit authority. It notes the failure of the plaintiff to meet the deadline set in the prior order. The dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to close the case when a plaintiff fails to timely respond to an order to amend, allowing for potential refiling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRISTOPHER K. ALONSO, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00760-WQH-NLS 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 WILLIAM QUAN, POLI FLORES, ROSS, M. LEPE 12 NEGRETE, and CHRISTOPHER 13 PLOURD, 14 Defendants. 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil 18 rights Complaint against Defendants, five judges who allegedly presided over a criminal 19 case brought against Plaintiff in California Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, 20 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3.) 21 On May 18, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Proceed IFP and 22 screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 4.) The Court 23 construed the Complaint as bringing claims against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 24 and dismissed the claims as barred by judicial immunity and because the Complaint did 25 not identify any specific constitutional provision violated by Defendants. The Court 26 granted Plaintiff thirty days in which to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint, 27 accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint that “addressed the deficiencies in the 28 original Complaint” and was “complete in itself.” Id. at 7. 1 On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Response for Bivens Statute Against Superior 2 || Court Imperial County” (the “Response”’). (ECF No. 5.) In the Response, Plaintiff restates 3 ||the allegations in the dismissed Complaint, and appears to contend that the existing 4 |\allegations preclude immunity and adequately support violations of Plaintiff's Fourth, 5 || Sixth, and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights. 6 To the extent that the Response requests reconsideration of the Court’s May 18, 7 2023, Order dismissing the Complaint, Plaintiff's request is denied because Plaintiff has 8 ||not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error and has not identified any other basis 9 || for reconsideration. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 10 2000) (stating that reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly” that 11 ||‘“‘should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 12 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 13 |/intervening change in the controlling law” (quotations omitted)). 14 The docket reflects that more than thirty days have passed since the filing of the 15 ||Court’s Order dismissing the Complaint and that no motion for leave to amend the 16 Complaint has been filed.! 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for reconsideration is denied. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed in its entirety without 19 || prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 20 Dated: June 21, 2023 BME: ie Z. Ma 21 Hon. William Q. Hayes 9 United States District Court 23 24 25 26 ! The Response does not request leave to amend the Complaint, does not identify any new factual 27 || allegations supporting Plaintiff's claims, and is not accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. xg || Accordingly, even if the Request were construed as a motion for leave to amend, the motion would be denied as futile and improper.