Williams v. Brant
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's failure to file an amended complaint after a prior dismissal with leave to amend. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute 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 without prejudice for failure to prosecute“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this civil action in entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a clatm upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)ai) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s May 9, 2023 Order.” | agree with court The order recites that the plaintiff was given 45 days to amend the complaint, the deadline passed without an amendment or extension request, and the court cites Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. for the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum is properly met with a Rule 41(b) dismissal. The decision follows from the procedural history and the cited authority. |
Certification that an in forma pauperis 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 applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) to deny IFP status for an appeal. While the order does not detail the specific merits of the potential appeal, it is standard practice for district courts to make this certification when dismissing a case for procedural default or failure to state a claim, particularly when the underlying claims were previously found deficient. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural default (failure to file an amended complaint within the allotted time) and applies the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.) to support the dismissal for failure to prosecute. The statutory citations for the initial dismissal and the IFP appeal certification are accurate. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on the docket history.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 23-CV-241-TWR (DDL) Inmate #21114692, 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR Plaintiff, 13 FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN v. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 14 ORDER BRANT, Lieutenant #2880, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Tommy Lee Williams, who is proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 19 Complaint (ECF No. 1, “Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Proceed 20 in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on February 6, 21 2023. Plaintiff alleged Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 22 (See generally Compl.) On May 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion but 23 dismissed the Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). (See ECF No. 5.) The Court gave Plaintiff forty- 25 five (45) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 20–21.) 26 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before June 23, 2023. (Id.) To date, 27 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and has not requested an extension of time in 28 which to do so. (See generally Docket.) “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond 1 || to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court 2 ||that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 3 || Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this civil action in 5 entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a clatm upon which § 1983 relief can be 6 || granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)ai) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to 7 || prosecute as required by the Court’s May 9, 2023 Order. (See ECF No. 5 at 20-21.) 8 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 9 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 10 || dismissal and close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: August 30, 2023 —_—— I [59 (OQ bre 14 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2