Alvarado v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that was previously dismissed with leave to amend, but the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension. The court dismissed the action in its entirety 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 Plaintiffs 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 March 28, 2023 Order.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the authority cited in Edwards v. Marin Park to dismiss the case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, as the plaintiff ignored the deadline to amend. The court also correctly cited the statutory authority for dismissing a complaint that fails to state a claim under the IFP and prisoner litigation screening statutes. |
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)” | agree with court The court applied the statutory standard for certifying that an appeal is not in good faith, which is a standard procedural step in IFP cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order to amend the complaint and applies the correct legal standard (Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute) as supported by Ninth Circuit precedent. It also correctly cites the statutory basis for dismissing the complaint on the merits (failure to state a claim) and certifies the IFP appeal status.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CESAR ALVARDO Case No.: 3:23-CV-0426-DMS-MDD Inmate No. 18123467, 9 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 10 ACTION FOR FAILING v. TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 11 WITH COURT ORDER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SHERIFF 12 MARTINAS; CHIEF MEDICAL 13 OFFICER MONTGOMERY; SONIA MANNING, FACILITY COMMANDER, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 I. Introduction 19 On March 7, 2023, Cesar Alvarado (“Plaintiff” or “Alvarado”), who is proceeding 20 pro se, was housed at the Vista Detention Facility (“VDF”) and filed a civil rights complaint 21 (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not 22 prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to 23 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. 24 On March 28, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma 25 Pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days from the date 27 of the dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. at 12. 28 1 Discussion 2 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before April 28, 2023. To date, 3 || he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. “The 4 || failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending 5 complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the 6 || sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 7 || 2004). 8 Conclusion and Order 9 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 10 || Plaintiffs 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 March 28, 2023 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: July 17, 2023 » 18 4 Yn: 19 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2