Fernando Covarrubias v. Trujillo

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 8, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-01456
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FERNANDO COVARRUBIAS, ) Case No. EDCV 20-1456-MCS (JPR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 v. ) TO STATE A CLAIM ) 13 CUSTODY SPECIALIST TRUJILLO ) et al., ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding 17 pro se, filed a civil-rights action against four West Valley 18 Detention Center employees, alleging various constitutional 19 claims arising from his incarceration there. He was subsequently 20 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 On September 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge dismissed the 22 Complaint with leave to amend because it failed to state any 23 claim. She advised Plaintiff that he could file objections to 24 her order and that if he failed to timely file an amended 25 complaint correcting the deficiencies she had pointed out, his 26 lawsuit might be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a First Amended 27 Complaint on October 5, 2020, adding a fifth defendant. The 28 Magistrate Judge dismissed that complaint too, on October 20, 1 1 2020, because it also failed to state a claim, and she again 2 advised him that he could file objections and warned him that his 3 failure to timely file an amended complaint in compliance with 4 the dismissal order could result in his lawsuit being dismissed. 5 Any second amended complaint was due November 17, 2020. To date 6 Plaintiff has neither filed a SAC nor requested an extension of 7 time to do so. 8 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per 9 curiam), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a pro se 10 plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See also Link v. 11 Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (“The power to invoke 12 [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the 13 disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the 14 calendars of the District Courts.”). A court must consider “(1) 15 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 16 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 17 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 18 disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability 19 of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (citation 20 omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of 21 prejudice to the defendants that can be overcome only with an 22 affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. See In re 23 Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). 24 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors 25 militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has 26 offered no explanation for his failure to file another amended 27 complaint. Thus, he has not rebutted the presumption of 28 prejudice to Defendants. No less drastic sanction is available, 2 the FAC fails to state a claim and cannot be ordered served, and Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to comply with the Court’s 3 instructions for fixing his allegations. Because none of his 4] claims can be ordered served, the Court is unable to manage its 5 || docket. Although the fourth Carey factor weighs against 6 || dismissal — as it always does — together the other factors 7 | outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case on its 8 ||/merits. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 9/1992) (as amended) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights 10 |] action for failure to timely file amended complaint remedying 11 || deficiencies in caption); Baskett v. Quinn, 225 F. App’x 639, 640 12 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal of pro se civil-rights 13 | action for failure to state claim or timely file amended 14 |} complaint). 15 ORDER 16 Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to 17 | prosecute and failure to state a claim. The Court has read and 18 || accepts the Magistrate Judge’s September 17 and October 20, 2020 19 || orders. 20 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. : Has patEp: December 8, 2020 hak . Low MARK C. SCARST 23 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 24 || Presented by: 35 fo Prcnlat~ Jean Rosenbluth Magistrate Judge 27 28