Brown v. Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, No. 14-16458 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the State Defendants, alleging state and federal claims arising out his discharge from the Hospital and subsequent transportation to Sacramento. The district court dismissed the federal statutory claims with prejudice as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and the supplemental state law claims without prejudice. The court held that plaintiff waived the argument that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his federal claims under Rule 41(b). The court explained that, in the absence of a showing that the district court abused its discretion, because the prior interlocutory order of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is not reviewable, there would be no basis to appeal. Therefore, the court concluded that, because plaintiff failed to make in his opening brief the abuse of discretion argument as to Rule 41(b), he has waived it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), of an action arising from plaintiff’s discharge from the Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada, and his subsequent transportation to Sacramento, California. The district court initially dismissed plaintiff’s federal constitutional and statutory claims without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), with leave to amend. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, moved for reconsideration. The district court denied that motion and, again, granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. When plaintiff did not timely file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s order, the district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, as a sanction under Rule 41(b). The panel held that plaintiff waived the argument that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his federal claims under Rule 41(b) by failing to raise the issue in his opening brief. The panel held that in the absence of a showing that the district court abused its discretion, and because the prior interlocutory order of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was not reviewable, there was no basis to appeal. Dissenting, Judge Graber stated that (1) the panel should have exercised discretion to consider the Rule 41(b) issue; 4 BROWN V. RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC HOSP. (2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case as a sanction under Rule 41(b), rather than on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) on the merits the district court erred in ruling that plaintiff failed to state a federal claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.