William Earl Littlejohn v. Los Angeles Police Department et al, No. 2:2017cv04212 - Document 12 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Manuel L. Real. It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed and that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly. (see document for further details) (klg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
William Earl Littlejohn v. Los Angeles Police Department et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 WILLIAM EARL LITTLEJOHN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CV 17-4212 R(JC) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 17 18 On June 6, 2017, plaintiff William Earl Littlejohn, who is in custody, is 19 proceeding pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a 20 verified Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which names as 21 defendants the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) and LAPD Officers 22 Issac Fernandez, Brian Williams, and Alex Zamora. 23 On January 8, 2018, this Court screened and dismissed the Complaint with 24 leave to amend and directed plaintiff, within twenty (20) days, to file a First 25 Amended Complaint or a signed Notice of Dismissal (“January Order”). The 26 January Order further expressly cautioned plaintiff in bold-faced print that the 27 failure timely to file a First Amended Complaint or a Notice of Dismissal may be 28 deemed plaintiff’s admission that amendment is futile and may result in the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 dismissal of this action on the grounds set forth in the January Order, on the 2 ground that amendment is futile, for failure diligently to prosecute, and/or for 3 failure to comply with such Order. Although the foregoing deadline expired more 4 than two weeks ago, to date plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint 5 or a Notice of Dismissal. 6 Based upon the record and the applicable law, and as further discussed 7 below, the Court dismisses this action due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 8 upon which relief can be granted, his failure to comply with the January Order and 9 his failure diligently to prosecute. 10 First, as explained in detail in the January Order, the Complaint failed to 11 state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The January Order explained in 12 detail what plaintiff needed to do to cure the deficiencies in his pleading, granted 13 plaintiff ample leave to file an amended complaint to the extent he was able to cure 14 the multiple pleading deficiencies identified, and warned plaintiff that the action 15 would be dismissed if he failed timely to file such an amendment. Since plaintiff 16 did not file an amended complaint despite having been given an opportunity to do 17 so, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff is simply unable or unwilling to draft 18 a complaint that states viable claims for relief and deems such failure an admission 19 that amendment is futile. See, e.g., Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 20 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings 21 to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the 22 litigant simply cannot state a claim.”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 135 S. 23 Ct. 57 (2014). Accordingly, dismissal of the instant action based upon plaintiff’s 24 failure to state a claim is appropriate. 25 Second, dismissal is appropriate based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply 26 with the January Order and the failure diligently to prosecute. It is well-established 27 that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action where a plaintiff has failed to 28 comply with a court order and/or unreasonably failed to prosecute. See Link v. 2 1 Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 2 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); see also 3 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court may sua 4 sponte dismiss action “only for an unreasonable failure to prosecute”) (citations 5 omitted); see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 6 2004) (sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) proper sanction in 7 cases where a plaintiff is notified of deficiencies in complaint and is given “the 8 opportunity to amend [the complaint] or be dismissed” but the plaintiff “[does] 9 nothing”) (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 10 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or 11 failure to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, 12 namely (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 13 court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; 14 (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 15 availability of less drastic alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th 16 Cir. 1994) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply 17 with court orders). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support 18 dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 19 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations 20 omitted).1 Here, as at least the first three factors strongly support dismissal, the 21 Court finds that plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to prosecute his case and failure to 22 comply with the January Order warrant dismissal. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a court must first notify the plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint so that the plaintiff has an opportunity “to amend effectively.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (citation omitted). A district judge may not dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order (e.g., the January Order) or for unreasonable failure to prosecute if the initial decision to dismiss a complaint was erroneous. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing id.). Here, as noted above, plaintiff has been notified of the deficiencies in the Complaint and has been afforded the opportunity to amend effectively. Further, the Court’s January Order was not erroneous. 3 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed and that the 2 Clerk enter judgment accordingly. 3 DATED: February 20, 2018 4 5 ________________________________ 6 HONORABLE MANUEL L. REAL 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
]]>
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.
