Kelvin X. Singleton v. S. Gates et al, No. 2:2019cv08908 - Document 71 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge R. Gary Klausner. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed based upon plaintiff's unreasonable failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the July Order - each of which constitutes an independent and adequate basis to support dismissal. (see document for further details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kelvin X. Singleton v. S. Gates et al Doc. 71 Case 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC Document 71 Filed 08/24/21 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:518 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELVIN X. SINGLETON, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 Case No. 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION S. GATES, et al., 15 16 17 I. 18 Defendants. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY On October 16, 2019, plaintiff Kelvin X. Singleton, who is in state custody, 19 is proceeding pro se, and has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of 20 the filing fee, filed a Civil Rights Complaint (“Original Complaint”) pursuant to 21 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), against the following defendants at California 22 State Prison – Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) in their individual and official 23 capacities: (1) S. Gates, Chief of Health Care Correspondence and Appeals 24 Branch; 25 (2) M. Lewis, Chief Physician and Surgeon; (3) B. Ramos, Chief Medical 26 Executive; (4) A. Galstian (erroneously sued as A. Galstain), Chief Executive 27 Officer; and (5) M. Nawaz, Primary Care Physician. (Docket No. 1). On 28 September 4, 2020, the Court granted defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Original Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC Document 71 Filed 08/24/21 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:519 1 Complaint, but afforded plaintiff leave to amend. (Docket No. 53). 2 On September 25, 2020, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“First 3 Amended Complaint” or “FAC”), asserting Eighth Amendment claims against the 4 same five defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Docket No. 54). 5 On July 2, 2021, this Court granted in part defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First 6 Amended Complaint and dismissed the First Amended Complaint as against 7 defendants in their official capacities with leave to amend (“July Order”). (Docket 8 No. 69). The July Order directed plaintiff within twenty (20) days (i.e., by July 22, 9 2021), to do one of the following: (1) file a Second Amended Complaint; (2) file a 10 Notice of Intent to Proceed Solely Against Defendants in Their Individual 11 Capacities; or (3) file a Notice of Dismissal. (Docket No. 69). The July Order 12 expressly cautioned plaintiff in bold-faced print that his failure timely to file a 13 Second Amended Complaint, a Notice of Intent to Proceed Solely Against 14 Defendants in Their Individual Capacities, or a Notice of Dismissal may result 15 in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice for failure diligently to 16 prosecute and/or for failure to comply with the July Order. 17 The foregoing July 22, 2021 deadline expired without any action by plaintiff. 18 Plaintiff has not sought an extension of the foregoing deadline or otherwise 19 communicated with the Court since the issuance of the July Order. 20 As discussed below, this action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s unreasonable 21 failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the July Order. 22 II. PERTINENT LAW 23 It is well-established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action 24 where the plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and/or unreasonably 25 failed to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 26 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. 27 denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th 28 Cir. 1991) (district court may sua sponte dismiss action “only for an unreasonable 2 Case 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC Document 71 Filed 08/24/21 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:520 1 failure to prosecute”) (citations omitted); see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 2 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 41(b) proper sanction in cases where a plaintiff is notified of deficiencies in 4 complaint and is given “the opportunity to amend [the complaint] or be dismissed” 5 but the plaintiff “[does] nothing”) (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 6 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure 7 to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, namely 8 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 9 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy 10 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 11 alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to 12 prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders). 13 Dismissal is appropriate under the foregoing analysis “where at least four factors 14 support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 15 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations 16 omitted). 17 Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the court must first notify 18 the plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint so that the plaintiff has an 19 opportunity “to amend effectively.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (citation omitted). A 20 district judge may not dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order or 21 for unreasonable failure to prosecute if the initial decision to dismiss a complaint 22 was erroneous. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) 23 (citing id.). 24 III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 25 First, the July Order was not erroneous and adequately and properly notified 26 plaintiff of the deficiencies in the official capacity claims in the First Amended 27 Complaint and afforded him an opportunity to amend effectively. 28 /// 3 Case 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC Document 71 Filed 08/24/21 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:521 1 /// 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC Document 71 Filed 08/24/21 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:522 1 Second, dismissal is appropriate based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply 2 with the July Order and the failure to prosecute. The Court has considered the five 3 factor discussed above – the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, 4 the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, the public 5 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less 6 drastic alternatives. The first two factors – the public’s interest in expeditiously 7 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket – strongly 8 weigh in favor of dismissal. As noted above, plaintiff has been notified of the 9 deficiencies in the official capacity claims in the First Amended Complaint and has 10 been given the opportunity to amend them, to dismiss the First Amended 11 Complaint, or to notify the Court that he wishes to stand on the remaining 12 individual capacity claims in the First Amended Complaint. He has done nothing. 13 See Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 14 also weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 15 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (prejudice to defendants presumed from 16 unreasonable delay) (citation omitted). The fourth factor, the public policy 17 favoring disposition of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in 18 favor of dismissal discussed herein. As for the fifth factor, since plaintiff has 19 already been cautioned of the consequences of his failure to prosecute and his 20 failure to comply with the July Order, and plaintiff has been afforded the 21 opportunity to avoid such consequences but has not responded, no sanction lesser 22 than dismissal is feasible. See, e.g., Yourish, 191 F.3d at 989 (dismissal of action 23 with prejudice not excessive sanction for plaintiffs’ failure timely to comply with 24 court’s order to submit an amended complaint). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 Case 2:19-cv-08908-RGK-JC Document 71 Filed 08/24/21 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:523 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed based upon 2 plaintiff’s unreasonable failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the July 3 Order – each of which constitutes an independent and adequate basis to support 4 dismissal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: August 24, 2021 7 8 ___________________________________ 9 HONORABLE R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
