Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:66
O 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 FERIDOON ASLANI, Case № 5:19-cv-02224-ODW (ADSx)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO al., 15 FILE FIRST AMENDED 16 Defendants. COMPLAINT [11] 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 19 On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff Feridoon Aslani, proceeding pro se, filed a 20 Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, on November 14, 2017, San 21 Bernardino County police officers unlawfully detained and arrested him. (Compl., 22 ECF No. 1.) On April 2, 2020, during screening of the Complaint, the Court 23 dismissed the Complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended 24 Complaint by May 4, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not timely amend, and on May 25 6, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be 26 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders. (ECF No. 8.) 27 Plaintiff did not respond, and on December 30, 2020, the Court dismissed the action, 28 both for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:67
1 41(b) and for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to the Court’s inherent 2 powers. (Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. 9.) The Court noted Plaintiff’s 3 extensive, repeated delays in prosecuting this case and determined that there was “no 4 less drastic sanction available as the Court has warned Plaintiff multiple times that the 5 case would be dismissed.” (Order Dismissing Action 3.) The Court entered a 6 Judgment of dismissal. (J., ECF No. 10.) 7 Nine months later, on September 15, 2021, Plaintiff moved to set aside the 8 judgment and file a First Amended Complaint. (See Mot.) Plaintiff’s Motion is 9 unopposed, and unsurprisingly so, as no Defendant was ever served. 10 About a month before Plaintiff filed the Motion at issue, on August 9, 2021, 11 Plaintiff filed a separate Complaint based on the exact same events, and the action was 12 assigned to this Court under Case No. 5:21-cv-01333-ODW (ADSx), where it 13 proceeded in a manner uncannily similar to these proceedings. Just as happened in 14 this action, Magistrate Judge Spaeth dismissed Aslani’s Complaint and provided 15 Aslani with two weeks’ leave to amend. (Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 6 in 16 5:21-1333.) When Aslani failed to respond, Magistrate Judge Spaeth ordered Aslani 17 to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (Order Show Cause, ECF No. 7 18 in 5:21-1333.) Then, on November 18, 2021, Aslani requested an extension of time to 19 file a First Amended Complaint. (Req., ECF No. 8 in 5:21-1333.) Judge Spaeth 20 granted the request, extending Aslani’s deadline to December 14, 2021. (Min. Order 21 re: Req., ECF No. 10 in 5:21-1333.) Then, on December 14, 2021, Aslani again 22 requested an extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint. (Second Req., ECF 23 No. 11 in 5:21-1333.) Magistrate Judge Spaeth denied the request, finding that Aslani 24 did not provide the required information regarding good cause to extend the deadline. 25 (Min. Order Den. Pl.’s Req., ECF No. 13 in 5:21-1333.) The Court accepted Judge 26 Spaeth’s recommendation and issued an Order of dismissal that provided in relevant 27 part:
2 Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:68
In his unsworn objections, Plaintiff explains for the first time why he 1 failed to respond to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth's prior orders 2 and why he needs more time to file a First Amended Complaint. First, 3 Plaintiff explains that he has developed a phobia after his arrest that makes it difficult for him to explain things in writing. Second, he 4 explains that he has contracted a helicobacter pylori infection that causes 5 him to lose focus and concentration. Third, Plaintiff explains he has had limited access to the self-help center in Riverside, California. 6
7 The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's objections. Judge Spaeth gave 8 Plaintiff three separate opportunities to file a First Amended Complaint over a span of nearly two months. (See Dkt. No. 6-7, 10.) Judge Spaeth 9 warned Plaintiff each time that failure to comply with court orders may 10 result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Despite these opportunities and repeated 11 admonitions, Plaintiff failed to file a First Amended Complaint and failed 12 to explain why he needed more time to do so. Plaintiff may not disregard court orders then ask for leniency after it has been recommended that his 13 case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. 14 15 The Court acknowledges that this is not Plaintiff’s first time failing to do so. In a strikingly similar case, the Court also issued a screening order 16 dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. See Aslani 17 v. San Bernardino Cnty., No. 5:19-02224 ODW (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020). After failing to respond to the screening order, Judge Spaeth 18 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why that case should not be dismissed for 19 failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Plaintiff had failed to 20 respond, and the case was dismissed accordingly.
21 22 Aslani v. San Bernardino County (“Aslani I”), No. 5:21-01333-ODW (ADSx), 23 2022 WL 356025, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2022). 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Rule 60(b) grants district courts discretion to relieve a party from a judgment or 26 order for reason of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” This Rule 27 gives district courts power to vacate judgments “whenever such action is appropriate 28 to accomplish justice.” U.S. v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1982).
3 Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:69
1 “[A]mending a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy which 2 should be used sparingly.” Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. 3 Progress, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing McDowell v. 4 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999)). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 In his Motion, Aslani makes the same arguments and assertions Magistrate 7 Judge Spaeth considered in recommending that dismissal of Aslani’s later-filed case 8 (5:21-01333) was warranted. Aslani describes to the Court how his health problems 9 have hindered his ability to prepare an amended pleading and asks for additional time. 10 (Mot. 2.) Yet, Aslani makes no attempt to describe, even in broad terms, how he 11 intends to amend his Complaint, or the date by which he expects he can do so. It also 12 bears observing that Aslani did not move to set aside the Judgment in this matter until 13 a full nine months after this Court issued it. Aslani’s motion lacks any indication that 14 the next nine months will prove any more fruitful than the two years that have already 15 passed since these proceedings began. 16 Enough is enough. The procedural history set forth above makes clear that, 17 between this case and his later-filed case, Aslani has had sufficient opportunity to 18 amend.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:66
O 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 FERIDOON ASLANI, Case № 5:19-cv-02224-ODW (ADSx)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO al., 15 FILE FIRST AMENDED 16 Defendants. COMPLAINT [11] 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 19 On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff Feridoon Aslani, proceeding pro se, filed a 20 Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, on November 14, 2017, San 21 Bernardino County police officers unlawfully detained and arrested him. (Compl., 22 ECF No. 1.) On April 2, 2020, during screening of the Complaint, the Court 23 dismissed the Complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended 24 Complaint by May 4, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not timely amend, and on May 25 6, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be 26 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders. (ECF No. 8.) 27 Plaintiff did not respond, and on December 30, 2020, the Court dismissed the action, 28 both for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:67
1 41(b) and for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to the Court’s inherent 2 powers. (Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. 9.) The Court noted Plaintiff’s 3 extensive, repeated delays in prosecuting this case and determined that there was “no 4 less drastic sanction available as the Court has warned Plaintiff multiple times that the 5 case would be dismissed.” (Order Dismissing Action 3.) The Court entered a 6 Judgment of dismissal. (J., ECF No. 10.) 7 Nine months later, on September 15, 2021, Plaintiff moved to set aside the 8 judgment and file a First Amended Complaint. (See Mot.) Plaintiff’s Motion is 9 unopposed, and unsurprisingly so, as no Defendant was ever served. 10 About a month before Plaintiff filed the Motion at issue, on August 9, 2021, 11 Plaintiff filed a separate Complaint based on the exact same events, and the action was 12 assigned to this Court under Case No. 5:21-cv-01333-ODW (ADSx), where it 13 proceeded in a manner uncannily similar to these proceedings. Just as happened in 14 this action, Magistrate Judge Spaeth dismissed Aslani’s Complaint and provided 15 Aslani with two weeks’ leave to amend. (Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 6 in 16 5:21-1333.) When Aslani failed to respond, Magistrate Judge Spaeth ordered Aslani 17 to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (Order Show Cause, ECF No. 7 18 in 5:21-1333.) Then, on November 18, 2021, Aslani requested an extension of time to 19 file a First Amended Complaint. (Req., ECF No. 8 in 5:21-1333.) Judge Spaeth 20 granted the request, extending Aslani’s deadline to December 14, 2021. (Min. Order 21 re: Req., ECF No. 10 in 5:21-1333.) Then, on December 14, 2021, Aslani again 22 requested an extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint. (Second Req., ECF 23 No. 11 in 5:21-1333.) Magistrate Judge Spaeth denied the request, finding that Aslani 24 did not provide the required information regarding good cause to extend the deadline. 25 (Min. Order Den. Pl.’s Req., ECF No. 13 in 5:21-1333.) The Court accepted Judge 26 Spaeth’s recommendation and issued an Order of dismissal that provided in relevant 27 part:
2 Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:68
In his unsworn objections, Plaintiff explains for the first time why he 1 failed to respond to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth's prior orders 2 and why he needs more time to file a First Amended Complaint. First, 3 Plaintiff explains that he has developed a phobia after his arrest that makes it difficult for him to explain things in writing. Second, he 4 explains that he has contracted a helicobacter pylori infection that causes 5 him to lose focus and concentration. Third, Plaintiff explains he has had limited access to the self-help center in Riverside, California. 6
7 The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's objections. Judge Spaeth gave 8 Plaintiff three separate opportunities to file a First Amended Complaint over a span of nearly two months. (See Dkt. No. 6-7, 10.) Judge Spaeth 9 warned Plaintiff each time that failure to comply with court orders may 10 result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Despite these opportunities and repeated 11 admonitions, Plaintiff failed to file a First Amended Complaint and failed 12 to explain why he needed more time to do so. Plaintiff may not disregard court orders then ask for leniency after it has been recommended that his 13 case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. 14 15 The Court acknowledges that this is not Plaintiff’s first time failing to do so. In a strikingly similar case, the Court also issued a screening order 16 dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. See Aslani 17 v. San Bernardino Cnty., No. 5:19-02224 ODW (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020). After failing to respond to the screening order, Judge Spaeth 18 ordered Plaintiff to show cause why that case should not be dismissed for 19 failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Plaintiff had failed to 20 respond, and the case was dismissed accordingly.
21 22 Aslani v. San Bernardino County (“Aslani I”), No. 5:21-01333-ODW (ADSx), 23 2022 WL 356025, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2022). 24 II. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Rule 60(b) grants district courts discretion to relieve a party from a judgment or 26 order for reason of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” This Rule 27 gives district courts power to vacate judgments “whenever such action is appropriate 28 to accomplish justice.” U.S. v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1982).
3 Case 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document 16 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:69
1 “[A]mending a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy which 2 should be used sparingly.” Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. 3 Progress, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing McDowell v. 4 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999)). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 In his Motion, Aslani makes the same arguments and assertions Magistrate 7 Judge Spaeth considered in recommending that dismissal of Aslani’s later-filed case 8 (5:21-01333) was warranted. Aslani describes to the Court how his health problems 9 have hindered his ability to prepare an amended pleading and asks for additional time. 10 (Mot. 2.) Yet, Aslani makes no attempt to describe, even in broad terms, how he 11 intends to amend his Complaint, or the date by which he expects he can do so. It also 12 bears observing that Aslani did not move to set aside the Judgment in this matter until 13 a full nine months after this Court issued it. Aslani’s motion lacks any indication that 14 the next nine months will prove any more fruitful than the two years that have already 15 passed since these proceedings began. 16 Enough is enough. The procedural history set forth above makes clear that, 17 between this case and his later-filed case, Aslani has had sufficient opportunity to 18 amend. Aslani’s “delayed responses and deficient responses ha[ve] again interfered 19 with the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this case, ha[ve] hindered the 20 Court’s ability to manage its docket, and ha[ve] presumptively prejudiced the 21 defendants. [Aslani’s] pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply with court 22 orders.” Aslani I, 2022 WL 356025, at *1 (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 23 (9th Cir. 1995). 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
4 Cage 5:19-cv-02224-ODW-ADS Document16 Filed 02/25/22 Page5of5 Page ID#:70
1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Aslani’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is DENIED. 3 || (ECF No. 11.) As a result, Aslani’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 4 || Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT. (ECF No. 11.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 February 25, 2022 N . 9 a“ 10 eee 11 OTIS DY WRIGHT, I b UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28