Dawes v. The People of the State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a First Amended Complaint filed by a pro se prisoner in a civil rights action, which was docketed on the same day as a prior order dismissing the original complaint for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint sua sponte for the same failure to state a claim and granted the plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 5, 2024.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim“Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s May 20, 2024, dismissal Order.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which mandates dismissal of prisoner complaints that fail to state a claim. The court noted that the First Amended Complaint contained the same defects as the original because it was filed before the plaintiff had notice of the specific deficiencies. Dismissing the amended complaint with leave to amend is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure the plaintiff has a fair opportunity to cure defects identified in the prior order. |
Grant of leave to file a Second Amended Complaint“If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he may, on or before July 5, 2024, file a Second Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s May 20, 2024 dismissal Order.” | agree with court Granting leave to amend is within the court's discretion, particularly for pro se litigants. Given that the plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint without knowledge of the specific defects identified in the contemporaneous dismissal order, granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is procedurally appropriate and consistent with the liberal amendment standards for pro se prisoners. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for screening prisoner complaints and explains the rationale for dismissing the First Amended Complaint (lack of notice of defects). It appropriately grants leave to amend and sets clear expectations for the Second Amended Complaint, including the waiver of unpled claims. The citations to Ninth Circuit and local rules are accurate and relevant to the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No.: 24cv-0401-CAB (DTF) CDCR #G-43030, 12 ORDER DISMISSING FIRST Plaintiff, 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR vs. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 15 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff William Dawes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 26, 2024, accompanied by a motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1-2. Plaintiff named as Defendants the People of 23 the State of California, the Governor of California, the California Attorney General, a 24 Deputy District Attorney, a Public Defender, four Judges, the San Diego Sheriff’s 25 Department, Patton State Hospital, and four psychiatrists. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. He claimed 26 they violated his federal constitutional rights in connection to his criminal trial and 27 competency determination in the San Diego County Superior Court and failed to protect 28 him from assault by inmates at the San Diego County Jail. Id. at 6-11. 1 On May 20, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 2 screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b), which require 3 the court to sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is 4 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 5 immune. ECF No. 6. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claims against the prosecutors, 6 judges and defense counsel in his criminal proceedings and competency determination 7 failed to state a claim because those Defendants were immune from relief with respect to 8 their involvement in those proceedings and because Plaintiff had failed to allege his 9 conviction has been declared invalid. Id. at 4-7. The Court dismissed the remaining claims 10 against the remaining Defendants as conclusory. Id. at 5, 7-8. Plaintiff was informed of 11 those pleading defects and granted leave to amend on or before July 5, 2024. Id. at 8-9. 12 On May 20, 2024, the same day the dismissal Order was filed, the Clerk of Court 13 docketed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 7. The First Amended Complaint 14 suffers from the same defects of pleading as the original Complaint, which is 15 understandable because Plaintiff did not have the benefit of this Court’s dismissal Order 16 identifying and informing him of those pleading defects. 17 Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint is dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim for the same reasons set forth 19 in the Court’s May 20, 2024, dismissal Order. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this 20 action, he may, on or before July 5, 2024, file a Second Amended Complaint which cures 21 the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s May 20, 2024 dismissal Order. Plaintiff’s 22 Second Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference to any prior 23 pleading. Defendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Second Amended 24 Complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc., 25 896 F.2d at 1546 (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa 26 Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend 27 which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be “considered waived if not 28 repled.”) 1 If Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint within the time provided, the 2 Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on Plaintiffs failure 3 || to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) 4 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring 5 ||amendment. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does 6 take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 7 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.’’). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 21, 2024 € ZL 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3