Francisco Garcia v. Los Angeles County

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 8, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-08528
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:20-cv-08528-JVS-KES Date: April 8, 2021 Title: FRANCISCO GARCIA v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al. PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jazmin Dorado Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not Be Dismissed In September 2020, Francisco Garcia (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the Men’s Central Jail (“MCJ”) operated by Los Angeles County (the “County”), filed a civil rights complaint. (Dkt. 1.) In December 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against (1) the County, (2) County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, (3) MCJ’s Nurse Perez, (4) Deputy Peralta, (5) Deputy Yhamel, (6) “grievance officer” Tipton, (7) Legal Unit Coordinator Hinton, (8) MCJ Medical Supervisor Urso, (9) MCJ Medical Supervisor Gulseth, (10) the “John Doe” who denied law library access to inmates, and (11) the “John Doe” who is the Chief Medical Officer and Supervisor of Nurse Perez. (Dkt. 13 [“FAC”].) In January 2021, the Court screened the FAC under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and dismissed it with leave to amend. (Dkt. 15.) The Court found that the FAC did not clearly delineate the MCJ’s alleged unconstitutional policies or customs, as is necessary to hold the County liable for the individual Defendants’ actions under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). (Dkt. 15 at 4–6.) The Court also found that the FAC failed to state a First or Eighth Amendment claim against many of the individual Defendants. (Id. at 7–12.) The Court gave Plaintiff until February 3, 2021, to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Id. at 14.) In February 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of this deadline. (Dkt. 16, 17.) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No: 2:20-cv-08528-JVS-KES Date: April 8, 2021 Page 2 Plaintiff’s latest deadline for filing a Second Amended Complaint passed on March 12, 2021, and as of the date of this Order, the Court has not received any further filings from Plaintiff. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before April 30, 2021, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or failure to follow this Court’s orders. Plaintiff may discharge this Order to Show Cause by either: (a) filing a Second Amended Complaint that attempts to remedy the defects identified in the Court’s screening order; (b)explaining why he missed the most recent deadline to do so and demonstrating good cause for a second extension of the deadline; or (c) voluntarily dismissing this action. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause, the Court may dismiss this action for lack of prosecution and/or failure to follow the Court’s orders. Initials of Deputy Clerk JD