Ahamed v. Navy Federal Credit Union
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court was asked to resolve the status of a pro se plaintiff's action after he failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline set in a prior dismissal order. The court ordered the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the entire action without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court converts its dismissal of the Complaint into a dismissal of the instant action. ... Such dismissal shall be without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural rule that when a plaintiff is granted leave to amend and fails to do so by the deadline, the court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the action. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is the standard outcome in this context to preserve the plaintiff's right to refile if they cure the deficiencies later. The order relies on the Ninth Circuit precedent Lira v. Herrera, which supports this conversion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately recites the history (prior dismissal with leave to amend, failure to amend) and applies the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Lira v. Herrera) to justify converting the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the action. The decision to dismiss without prejudice is appropriate given the procedural nature of the failure to amend.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ABDULLAH AHAMED, Case No. 23-cv-1726-BAS-BLM 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 12 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
13 NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Abdullah Ahamed, proceeding pro se, filed this case concerning a disputed 17 payment of his credit card debt. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Subsequently, 18 Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 19 principally on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint did not state a plausible claim to relief. 20 (See generally ECF No. 7.) On March 29, 2024, the Court granted this motion to dismiss 21 because it concluded Plaintiff had not alleged facts sufficiently plausible to plead any of 22 his claims. (Dismissal Order, ECF No. 14.) However, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to 23 amend his Complaint and correct the deficient claims on or before April 19, 2024. (Id. at 24 8:12–13.) 25 Now, April 19, 2024, has come and gone without the filing of a corrected pleading. 26 Accordingly, the Court converts its dismissal of the Complaint into a dismissal of the 27 instant action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff 28 does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert 1 ||the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). Such dismissal shall 2 || be without prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 A 5 || DATED: April 24, 2024 Ypilag (Lyohaa é 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.