French v. Xiong

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-01294 · 2023-09-20 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Janis L. Sammartino (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:50Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that was previously dismissed with leave to amend, and the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension within the 45-day deadline. The court dismissed the action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and 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 in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute “Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's 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 July 19, 2023 Order.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the consequences of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the prior order to amend. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend or dismiss warrants a Rule 41(b) dismissal. The statutory citations to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) are appropriate for a pro se prisoner civil rights action that fails to state a claim. The record indicates the deadline expired and no extension was requested, making the dismissal procedurally sound.
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 certification is a standard procedural step following a dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint. While the order does not elaborate on the specific reasons why an appeal would not be in good faith, this is common in such orders where the dismissal is based on procedural default (failure to prosecute) and the underlying failure to state a claim, which are often considered non-meritorious for appeal purposes in this context.

What the court decided

The model

Dismissal of the civil action in its entirety for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute

“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's 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 July 19, 2023 Order.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the consequences of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the prior order to amend. The citation to Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court's ultimatum to amend or dismiss warrants a Rule 41(b) dismissal. The statutory citations to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1) are appropriate for a pro se prisoner civil rights action that fails to state a claim. The record indicates the deadline expired and no extension was requested, making the dismissal procedurally sound.

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 certification is a standard procedural step following a dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint. While the order does not elaborate on the specific reasons why an appeal would not be in good faith, this is common in such orders where the dismissal is based on procedural default (failure to prosecute) and the underlying failure to state a claim, which are often considered non-meritorious for appeal purposes in this context.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It clearly identifies the prior order, the deadline, the plaintiff's failure to act, and the legal basis for dismissal. It cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Edwards) for the failure to prosecute aspect and the correct statutes for the failure to state a claim aspect. The reasoning directly answers the procedural posture of the case.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER G. FRENCH Case No.: 23-CV-1294 JLS (JLB) CDCR No. K-96643, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE 14 A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 15 v. WITH COURT ORDER 16 17 C. XIONG, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 I. Introduction 22 On July 5, 2023, Kristopher French (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se and 23 currently housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights 24 Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not 25 prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to 26 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. 27 1 On July 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion and dismissed □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See ECF No. 3 ||5. The Court’s Order allowed Plaintiff forty-five (45) days from July 19, 2023, to file an 4 |}amended complaint. /d. at 8. The Court informed Plaintiff that if he failed to file within 5 || the time provided, the Court would dismiss the civil action based both on Plaintiffs failure 6 ||to state a claim and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring 7 |{amendment. Id. 8 Discussion 9 Plaintiff's forty-five-day filing period expired on September 2, 2023. See id. To 10 Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of time 11 which to do so. See generally Docket. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond 12 ||to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court 13 || that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 14 || Edwards vy. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 17 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 18 ||U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and § 1915A(b)(1) and his failure to prosecute as required by 19 || Court’s July 19, 2023 Order. 20 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 22 || dismissal and close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 ||Dated: September 19, 2019 jae L. Lo memeaite- 26 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 27