1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT, Case No. CV 20-03459-DMG (JC) 12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 14 RAYBON C. JOHNSON, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 18 On April 14, 2020, plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, who is in state custody, is 19 proceeding pro se, and has since been granted leave to proceed without prepayment 20 of the filing fee (“IFP”), filed a Civil Rights Complaint (“Original Complaint”) 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 As plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, the assigned Magistrate 23 Judge screened the Original Complaint to determine if the action is frivolous or 24 malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 25 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 26 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). 27 /// 28 1 On March 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Dismissing [the 2 Original] Complaint with Leave to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to 3 Order (“March 2021 Order”).1 [Doc. # 21.] The March 2021 Order advised 4 plaintiff that the Original Complaint was deficient for reasons described in the 5 March 2021 Order and dismissed the Original Complaint with leave to amend.2 6 On May 14, 2021, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. [Doc. # 27.] 7 The gravamen of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was that prison officials 8 from the California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California 9 (“CSP-LAC”) – where plaintiff was formerly housed – engaged in various actions 10 11 1Absent consent by all parties, including unserved defendants, a magistrate judge cannot 12 issue dispositive orders, including an order dismissing a claim. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 13 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[C]onsent of all parties (including unserved defendants) is a prerequisite to a magistrate judge’s 14 jurisdiction to enter dispositive decisions under § 636(c)(1).”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). However, “the dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive matter.” 15 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a magistrate judge may 16 dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without the approval of a district judge. See id. at 797. Additionally, a plaintiff who disagrees with a magistrate judge’s order, including a 17 nondispositive order dismissing a pleading with leave to amend, may file an objection with the 18 district judge. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Hunt v. Pliler, 384 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District court review of even these nondispositive 19 matters . . . can be compelled upon objection of the party against whom the magistrate has ruled.”) (quoting McKeever, 932 F.2d at 798). The March 2021 Order expressly notified plaintiff 20 that (1) the March 2021 Order constituted non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters; 21 (2) to the extent a party disagreed with such non-dispositive rulings, such party may seek review from the District Judge within fourteen (14) days; (3) to the extent a party believed that the 22 rulings were dispositive, rather than non-dispositive, such party had the right to object to the 23 determination that the rulings were non-dispositive within fourteen (14) days; and (4) a party would be foreclosed from challenging the rulings in the March 2021 Order if such party did not 24 seek review thereof or object thereto. (March 2021 Order at 27 n.10). 25 2Specifically, the Magistrate Judge advised plaintiff, albeit in greater detail and with 26 citation to authorities, that the Original Complaint, among other deficiencies, violated Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to state First Amendment and Eighth 27 Amendment claims against multiple defendants, and failed to state Fourteenth Amendment due 28 process and equal protection claims. 2 1 that, among other things, violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights to be free 2 from cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to serious threats to 3 his safety, his First Amendment rights to seek redress in the courts and to be free 4 from retaliation therefor, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. 5 Plaintiff sought various remedies, including damages, declaratory relief and an 6 order requiring prison officials to transfer plaintiff to another facility. 7 On November 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge screened the First Amended 8 Complaint and issued an Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint with Leave 9 to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to Order (“November 2021 Order”).3 10 [Doc. # 28.] The November 2021 Order advised plaintiff that the First Amended 11 Complaint was deficient for reasons described in the November 2021 Order and 12 dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.4 13 After multiple extensions of time, plaintiff filed a Second Amended 14 Complaint on July 13, 2022, again seeking monetary, declaratory, and other relief 15 based on claims that numerous CSP-LAC officials had violated plaintiff’s First, 16 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [Doc. # 35.] 17 On September 25, 2023, the Magistrate Judge screened the Second Amended 18 Complaint and issued an Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint with 19 3The November 2021 Order expressly notified plaintiff that (1) the November 2021 Order 20 constituted non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters; (2) to the extent a party disagreed with 21 such non-dispositive rulings, such party may seek review from the District Judge within fourteen (14) days; (3) to the extent a party believed that the rulings were dispositive, rather than non- 22 dispositive, such party had the right to object to the determination that the rulings were non- 23 dispositive within fourteen (14) days; and (4) a party would be foreclosed from challenging the rulings in the November 2021 Order if such party did not seek review thereof or object thereto. 24 (November 2021 Order at 29 n.12). 25 4Specifically, the Magistrate Judge advised plaintiff, albeit in greater detail and with 26 citation to authorities, that the First Amended Complaint, among other deficiencies, violated Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to state First Amendment and 27 Eighth Amendment claims against multiple defendants, and failed to state a Fourteenth 28 Amendment due process claim. 3 1 Leave to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to Order (“September 2023 2 Order”).5 [Doc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT, Case No. CV 20-03459-DMG (JC) 12 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 14 RAYBON C. JOHNSON, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 18 On April 14, 2020, plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, who is in state custody, is 19 proceeding pro se, and has since been granted leave to proceed without prepayment 20 of the filing fee (“IFP”), filed a Civil Rights Complaint (“Original Complaint”) 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 As plaintiff is a prisoner and is proceeding IFP, the assigned Magistrate 23 Judge screened the Original Complaint to determine if the action is frivolous or 24 malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 25 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 26 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). 27 /// 28 1 On March 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Dismissing [the 2 Original] Complaint with Leave to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to 3 Order (“March 2021 Order”).1 [Doc. # 21.] The March 2021 Order advised 4 plaintiff that the Original Complaint was deficient for reasons described in the 5 March 2021 Order and dismissed the Original Complaint with leave to amend.2 6 On May 14, 2021, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. [Doc. # 27.] 7 The gravamen of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was that prison officials 8 from the California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster, California 9 (“CSP-LAC”) – where plaintiff was formerly housed – engaged in various actions 10 11 1Absent consent by all parties, including unserved defendants, a magistrate judge cannot 12 issue dispositive orders, including an order dismissing a claim. Branch v. Umphenour, 936 F.3d 13 994, 1004 (9th Cir. 2019); see also Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[C]onsent of all parties (including unserved defendants) is a prerequisite to a magistrate judge’s 14 jurisdiction to enter dispositive decisions under § 636(c)(1).”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). However, “the dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive matter.” 15 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a magistrate judge may 16 dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without the approval of a district judge. See id. at 797. Additionally, a plaintiff who disagrees with a magistrate judge’s order, including a 17 nondispositive order dismissing a pleading with leave to amend, may file an objection with the 18 district judge. See Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Hunt v. Pliler, 384 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District court review of even these nondispositive 19 matters . . . can be compelled upon objection of the party against whom the magistrate has ruled.”) (quoting McKeever, 932 F.2d at 798). The March 2021 Order expressly notified plaintiff 20 that (1) the March 2021 Order constituted non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters; 21 (2) to the extent a party disagreed with such non-dispositive rulings, such party may seek review from the District Judge within fourteen (14) days; (3) to the extent a party believed that the 22 rulings were dispositive, rather than non-dispositive, such party had the right to object to the 23 determination that the rulings were non-dispositive within fourteen (14) days; and (4) a party would be foreclosed from challenging the rulings in the March 2021 Order if such party did not 24 seek review thereof or object thereto. (March 2021 Order at 27 n.10). 25 2Specifically, the Magistrate Judge advised plaintiff, albeit in greater detail and with 26 citation to authorities, that the Original Complaint, among other deficiencies, violated Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to state First Amendment and Eighth 27 Amendment claims against multiple defendants, and failed to state Fourteenth Amendment due 28 process and equal protection claims. 2 1 that, among other things, violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights to be free 2 from cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to serious threats to 3 his safety, his First Amendment rights to seek redress in the courts and to be free 4 from retaliation therefor, and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. 5 Plaintiff sought various remedies, including damages, declaratory relief and an 6 order requiring prison officials to transfer plaintiff to another facility. 7 On November 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge screened the First Amended 8 Complaint and issued an Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint with Leave 9 to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to Order (“November 2021 Order”).3 10 [Doc. # 28.] The November 2021 Order advised plaintiff that the First Amended 11 Complaint was deficient for reasons described in the November 2021 Order and 12 dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.4 13 After multiple extensions of time, plaintiff filed a Second Amended 14 Complaint on July 13, 2022, again seeking monetary, declaratory, and other relief 15 based on claims that numerous CSP-LAC officials had violated plaintiff’s First, 16 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [Doc. # 35.] 17 On September 25, 2023, the Magistrate Judge screened the Second Amended 18 Complaint and issued an Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint with 19 3The November 2021 Order expressly notified plaintiff that (1) the November 2021 Order 20 constituted non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters; (2) to the extent a party disagreed with 21 such non-dispositive rulings, such party may seek review from the District Judge within fourteen (14) days; (3) to the extent a party believed that the rulings were dispositive, rather than non- 22 dispositive, such party had the right to object to the determination that the rulings were non- 23 dispositive within fourteen (14) days; and (4) a party would be foreclosed from challenging the rulings in the November 2021 Order if such party did not seek review thereof or object thereto. 24 (November 2021 Order at 29 n.12). 25 4Specifically, the Magistrate Judge advised plaintiff, albeit in greater detail and with 26 citation to authorities, that the First Amended Complaint, among other deficiencies, violated Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to state First Amendment and 27 Eighth Amendment claims against multiple defendants, and failed to state a Fourteenth 28 Amendment due process claim. 3 1 Leave to Amend and Directing Plaintiff to Respond to Order (“September 2023 2 Order”).5 [Doc. # 41.] The September 2023 Order advised plaintiff that the Second 3 Amended Complaint was deficient for reasons described in the September 2023 4 Order, dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend, and 5 directed plaintiff, within twenty days (i.e., by October 16, 2023), to file one of the 6 following: (1) a third amended complaint which cures the pleading defects 7 described in the September 2023 Order; (1) a notice of dismissal; or (3) a notice of 8 intent to stand on the Second Amended Complaint.6 The September 2023 Order 9 expressly cautioned plaintiff that the failure timely to file a third amended 10 complaint, a notice of dismissal, or a notice of intent to stand on the Second 11 Amended Complaint may be deemed plaintiff’s admission that amendment is futile 12 and may result in the dismissal of this action on the grounds set forth in the 13 September 2023 Order, on the ground that amendment is futile, for failure 14 diligently to prosecute, and/or for failure to comply with the September 2023 15 Order. 16 The October 16, 2023 deadline expired without any action by plaintiff to 17 comply therewith. Plaintiff has not sought review of, or filed any objection to the 18 September 2023 Order and to date, has not complied with the September 2023 19 5The September 2023 Order expressly notified plaintiff that (1) the September 2023 Order 20 constituted non-dispositive rulings on pretrial matters; (2) to the extent a party disagreed with 21 such non-dispositive rulings, such party may seek review from the District Judge within fourteen (14) days; (3) to the extent a party believed that the rulings were dispositive, rather than non- 22 dispositive, such party had the right to object to the determination that the rulings were non- 23 dispositive within fourteen (14) days; and (4) a party would be foreclosed from challenging the rulings in the September 2023 Order if such party did not seek review thereof or object thereto. 24 (September 2023 Order at 24 n.5). 25 6Specifically, the Magistrate Judge advised plaintiff, albeit in greater detail and with 26 citation to authorities, that the Second Amended Complaint, among other deficiencies, violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to state First Amendment and Eighth 27 Amendment claims against multiple defendants, and failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due 28 process or equal protection claim. 4 1 Order. As discussed below, this action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s unreasonable 2 failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the September 2023 Order. 3 II. PERTINENT LAW 4 It is well-established that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action 5 where the plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order and/or unreasonably 6 failed to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 7 (1962); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.) (as amended), cert. 8 denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th 9 Cir. 1991) (district court may sua sponte dismiss action “only for an unreasonable 10 failure to prosecute”) (citations omitted); see also Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 11 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 41(b) proper sanction in cases where a plaintiff is notified of deficiencies in 13 complaint and is given “the opportunity to amend [the complaint] or be dismissed” 14 but the plaintiff “[does] nothing”) (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 15 In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure 16 to comply with court orders, a district court must consider several factors, namely 17 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 18 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy 19 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 20 alternatives. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to 21 prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (failure to comply with court orders). 22 Dismissal is appropriate under the foregoing analysis “where at least four factors 23 support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” 24 Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations 25 omitted). 26 Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the court must first notify 27 the plaintiff of the deficiencies in the complaint so that the plaintiff has an 28 opportunity “to amend effectively.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (citation omitted). In 5 1 addition, where a Magistrate Judge originally dismissed the complaint with leave to 2 amend, the District Judge must review that decision before dismissing the entire 3 action. See McKeever, 932 F.2d at 797 (“While the magistrate can dismiss 4 complaints with leave to amend, the district court necessarily must review that 5 decision before dismissing the entire action.”). A district judge may not dismiss an 6 action for failure to comply with a court order (e.g., the Magistrate Judge’s order to 7 file an amended complaint) or for unreasonable failure to prosecute if the initial 8 decision to dismiss a complaint was erroneous. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 9 191 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing id.). 10 III. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 11 First, the Court has reviewed the March 2021 Order, the November 2021 12 Order, and the September 2023 Order and finds that they adequately and properly 13 notified plaintiff of the deficiencies in the Original Complaint, the First Amended 14 Complaint, and the Second Amended Complaint, respectively, and afforded 15 plaintiff an opportunity to amend effectively. This Court agrees with and adopts 16 the March 2021, November 2021, and September 2023 Orders, and finds that the 17 Magistrate Judge properly dismissed the Original Complaint, First Amended 18 Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend for the reasons 19 discussed therein. 20 Second, dismissal is appropriate based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply 21 with the September 2023 Order and the failure to prosecute. The Court has 22 considered the five factors discussed above – the public’s interest in expeditious 23 resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice 24 to defendants, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and 25 the availability of less drastic alternatives. The first two factors – the public’s 26 interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in 27 managing the docket – strongly weigh in favor of dismissal. As noted above, 28 plaintiff has been notified of the deficiencies in the Second Amended Complaint 6 1 | and has been given the opportunity to amend it, to dismiss it, or to notify the Court 2 || that he wishes to stand thereon, and plaintiff has not responded in any manner. See 3 || Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 4 || weighs strongly in favor of dismissal. See Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 5 | 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (prejudice to defendants presumed from unreasonable 6 || delay) (citation omitted). The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition 7 || of cases on their merits, is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal 8 || discussed herein. As for the fifth factor, since plaintiff has already been cautioned 9 || of the consequences of his failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the 10 | September 2023 Order, and plaintiff has been afforded the opportunity to avoid 11 | such consequences but has not responded, no sanction lesser than dismissal is 12 |] feasible. See, e.g., Yourish, 191 F.3d at 989 (dismissal of action with prejudice not 13 || excessive sanction for plaintiffs’ failure timely to comply with court’s order to 14 | submit an amended complaint). 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed based upon 16 || plaintiff's unreasonable failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the 17 || September 2023 Order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 | DATED: March 29, 2024 21 net, dn __ 23 DOLLY JEE 54 UNITED ®BTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28