Lisa M Bernal v. Providence Health

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 17, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-10292
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA M. BERNAL, ) Case No. CV 20-10292-GW (JPR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED 13 v. ) COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR ) FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND 14 PROVIDENCE HEALTH & ) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM SERVICES et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 17 On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed 18 under seal a largely incomprehensible 181-page Complaint,1 suing 19 more than 100 individual and entity Defendants. She was 20 subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On 21 March 17, 2021, the Court granted her December 29, 2020 motion to 22 amend the Complaint, ordering that the proposed First Amended 23 Complaint she lodged with her motion be filed.2 The FAC raised 24 25 1 Plaintiff filed the Complaint under seal without any authority to do so; on February 16, 2021, after the Court so noted, 26 she asked that it be unsealed. 27 2 By March, Plaintiff had filed at least five motions for 28 leave to amend the Complaint; the December 29 motion, however, was the most recent one accompanied by a complete copy of the proposed 1 1 39 causes of action, including civil-rights and employment- 2 discrimination claims. In it she alleged the existence of a far- 3 reaching conspiracy — involving private hospitals, 4 municipalities, police departments, state and federal agencies, 5 several labor unions, and numerous public employees and private 6 individuals — that had caused various injuries to her and her 7 family. 8 On April 12, 2021, the Court dismissed the FAC with leave to 9 amend because it was “so unwieldy that the Court c[ould] not 10 effectively screen it” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Order at 11 3, ECF. No. 62.) Instead, the Court identified several 12 overarching problems with it for Plaintiff to fix. (Id. at 5- 13 15.) It told her that if she did so, it would “then screen 14 individual claims.” (Id. at 3.) The Court dismissed some 15 clearly improper claims with prejudice and instructed her not to 16 include them in any amended complaint. (See id. at 13 & n.6, 14 17 & n.7.) It also noted that although much of the FAC appeared to 18 be “delusional or fantastical,” it would give her one chance to 19 amend because buried in the FAC’s allegations might be a “kernel” 20 of an employment-law claim. (Id. at 8-9.) The Court observed 21 that many of her claims involved entirely different events and 22 Defendants and were thus misjoined. (Id. at 13-15.) The Court 23 instructed her that she “must file a separate lawsuit for each 24 set of related acts or omissions she claims violated her rights.” 25 26 amended complaint, as required by Local Rule 15-1. Many of those 27 motions, including the one the Court granted, stated that they were 28 the “final” such motion. (See, e.g., Dec. 29, 2020 Mot. Amend at 1). 2 1 (Id. at 14.) Further, the Court stated, in underlined lettering, 2 that she “must use the Court’s forms” — copies of which it 3 supplied to her (see id., Attachs. 1 & 2, ECF No. 62) — “to file 4 any amended complaint in this action as well as to file any new 5 civil lawsuits.” (Id. at 15.) The Court also advised her of the 6 availability of help from the pro se clinics. (Id. at 16.) 7 Finally, the Court warned Plaintiff in bold lettering that if she 8 did not file an amended complaint “complying with the Court’s 9 instructions, the Court may dismiss this action with prejudice.” 10 (Id.) 11 On May 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a single Second Amended 12 Complaint, which has ballooned to 285 pages (not counting 13 voluminous attachments) and too many Defendants to count. It is 14 not on the required Court form, and it includes the claims the 15 Court told her were dismissed with prejudice and should not be 16 included in any amended complaint. She has added even more 17 frivolous allegations and prayers for relief — for example, she 18 sues most of the Western states (see SAC at 5) and asks that 19 adultery be made illegal (id. at 279). 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “the district 21 court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order 22 of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 23 1992) (as amended) (affirming district court’s dismissal of 24 action because pro se plaintiff failed to follow order to amend 25 caption). Indeed, district courts have inherent power to control 26 their dockets, including the authority to dismiss lawsuits. 27 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th 28 Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1961)). 3 1 Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it should be imposed only 2 in “extreme circumstances.” Id. But the harshness of the 3 penalty is “directly proportionate to the likelihood that 4 plaintiff would prevail if permitted to go forward to trial.” 5 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation 6 omitted). 7 Before dismissing a lawsuit under Rule 41(b), a court should 8 weigh five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 9 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 10 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 11 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 12 (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 13 F.2d at 1260-61 (citation omitted). 14 Here, the first, second, third, and fifth factors militate 15 in favor of dismissal. This lawsuit has been pending since 16 November 2020, more than six months, and despite numerous 17 attempts Plaintiff still has not filed a viable complaint; 18 instead of following the Court’s instructions on how to do so, 19 she has repeatedly wasted its time and resources (and the Ninth 20 Circuit’s, with an appeal that was ultimately dismissed) with 21 numerous baseless notices and requests. (See, e.g. Order at 1-2 22 n.2, ECF No. 62); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261 (noting that first two 23 factors “strongly support” dismissal when case “consumed large 24 amounts of the court’s valuable time”). And requiring scores of 25 Defendants to defend themselves against allegations that are 26 conclusory and nonsensical, if not absent entirely as to some 27 Defendants, would surely prejudice them. Thus, no less drastic 28 sanction is available, as the SAC fails to state a claim and 4 1 |} should not be ordered served, and Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to follow the Court’s instructions to fix it.° 3 Although the fourth factor weighs against dismissal — as it 4]| always does — together the other factors outweigh the public’s 5 ]} interest in disposing of the case on its merits, particularly 6 |] given its frivolousness. See Seto v. Thielen, 519 F. App’x 966, 71969 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding dismissal of complaint when 8 | “[p]laintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with the district court’s orders directing them to remedy the drastic shortcomings 10] of their pleadings” and “were warned several times that failure 11 } to comply . . . would result in automatic dismissal”). 12 ORDER 13 For the reasons discussed above, this action is dismissed 14} with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to state any claim, and for the reasons stated in the 16} April 12 dismissal order. 17 feng Ky WA 18 DATED: May 17, 2021 GEORGE H. WU 19 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 20 || Presented by: 21 fr Prendlate~ Jean P. Rosenbluth 22 Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 * It may be Plaintiff’s intent to stand on her complaint as 26 written. That is certainly her right, see Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2004), but it does not 27 obligate the Court to order the SAC served. Rather, her recourse 28 is to take an appeal from this dismissal order. See id.