Holiday v. Unknown Officer or Officers of the San Diego Police Department
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil rights complaint that had been dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, noting the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and ordered the clerk to close the file.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to prosecute“So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the case because the plaintiff failed to comply with a prior order to amend the complaint by a specific deadline. The record establishes that the plaintiff was given notice of the consequences of non-compliance and failed to act, which justifies dismissal for failure to prosecute. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the specific prior order (ECF 6) that set the deadline, confirms the plaintiff's failure to comply, and applies the correct legal standard (Rule 41(b)) supported by binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Edwards v. Marin Park). The dismissal is without prejudice, which is the standard remedy for failure to prosecute in this context.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 || Juan Marquis HOLIDAY, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1069-AGS-MMP > Plaintity, | ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 6 vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 7 || UNKNOWN OFFICER OR OFFICERS OF | PROSECUTE THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 9 Defendants. 10 1] 12 Juan Marquis Holiday, a federal inmate proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil 13 ||rights action, alleging his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when unnamed San 14 || Diego Police Officer(s) entered his home without a warrant. (ECF 1.) On January 1, 2024, 15 ||the Court granted Holiday’s IFP application but dismissed “the complaint without 16 || prejudice and with leave to amend” by “March 15, 2024.” (ECF 6, at 8.) Holiday was 17 || cautioned that if he failed to “timely amend, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing 18 || this civil action.”(/d.) To date, Holiday has not responded or filed an amended complaint. 19 Holiday’s failure to respond to the court’s order “is properly met with the sanction 20 || of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 21 || So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this file. 22 ||Dated: April 26, 2024 23 4 □□ IA Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 95 United States District Judge 26 27 28