Mazen Alawi v. Unkown

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 28, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-01003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01003-JWH-MRW Document 19 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:54 JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. ED CV 22-1003 JWH 13 MAZEN ALAWI, (MRW) 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 15 v. DEFENDANT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 16 UNKNOWN, FRCP 41 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:22-cv-01003-JWH-MRW Document 19 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:55

1 The Court DISMISSES this civil action without leave to 2 amend. 3 1. This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff’s 4 original complaint alleged that unnamed staff at a Riverside County 5 detention facility mistreated him. (Docket # 1.) 6 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, Magistrate 7 Judge Wilner reviewed the original complaint. The Court accepted 8 Magistrate Judge Wilner’s recommendation to dismiss the action with 9 leave to amend due to Plaintiff’s failure: (a) properly to apply for in 10 forma pauperis treatment; and (b) to name a legitimate defendant in 11 the action. (Docket # 4.) 12 3. Plaintiff subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint 13 (along with proper IFP documentation). (Docket # 9, 10.) Magistrate 14 Judge Wilner again screened the pleading. Magistrate Judge Wilner 15 concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible cause of action 16 against any of the named parties, improperly tried to name Doe 17 defendants, and failed properly to allege supervisorial liability 18 against senior law enforcement officials. (Docket # 12.) The action 19 was again dismissed with leave to amend. 20 4. Plaintiff failed to file any new complaint in response to the 21 screening order. Magistrate Judge Wilner issued an order to show 22 cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 23 (Docket # 13.) The OSC advised Plaintiff that failure to amend would 24 lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed under Rule 41 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 5. Plaintiff requested additional time to prepare a new 27 complaint. (Docket # 14.) Magistrate Judge Wilner granted that 28 2 Case 5:22-cv-01003-JWH-MRW Document 19 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:56

1 extension. (Docket # 15.) However, after receiving the extension, 2 Plaintiff failed to file anything resembling a legitimate civil 3 complaint. (Docket # 16.) 4 6. Although the action has been open since mid-2022, 5 Plaintiff has not been able to state a plausible civil claim or to 6 advance this case in any meaningful way.1 7 7. Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or 8 to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 9 dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be 10 ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 11 629-30 (1962). 12 8. Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a court to dismiss a civil 13 action when a plaintiff has not filed a required pleading “after being 14 given leave to do so and has not notified the court of his intention not 15 to file” that document. Harris v. Magnum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th 16 Cir. 2017). Rule 41(b) applies when a court “mandate[s] the filing” of 17 a pleading and “indicate[s] that failure to do so would result in 18 dismissal” under the rule. Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. 19 Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2019). 20 9. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be 21 appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the expeditious 22 resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to 23 avoid the risk of prejudice to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 24 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, a court should consider 25 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and the 26

27 1 The Court takes notice that Plaintiff previously commenced, but abandoned, a similar civil action that sought to challenge his treatment in local 28 custody. Alawi v. Riversie County, No. ED CV 21-1499 JWH (MRW) (C.D. Cal.). 3 Case 5:22-cv-01003-JWH-MRW Document 19 Filed 02/28/23 Page 4of5 Page ID #:57

1 | availability of less drastic alternatives in its evaluation. Carey v. 2 | King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 10. Inthe present action, the Court finds dismissal of the 4 | action without leave to amend is appropriate. Plaintiff failed to file a 5 | timely, proper complaint in this action after receiving detailed 6 | explanations of the defects of his earlier pleadings from the 7 | magistrate judge. Plaintiffs refusal or inability to file a plausible 8 | complaint in light of the court’s warnings demonstrates that he has 9 | no interest in advancing that aspect of the action here. 10 11. contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a 11 | strong interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true 12 | given that Plaintiff seemingly chose to abandon his case by failing to 13 | respond to court orders (as also occurred in his 2021 case), thereby 14 | preventing any feasible advancement of the case. Furthermore, 15 | because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not abide by the Court’s 16 | previous orders, no sanction short of dismissal of this party will be 17 | effective in moving this case forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. The 18 | Court finds that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Applied 19 | Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 892. 20 12. Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without leave 21 | to amend. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. : Ua 241 Dated: February 28, 2023 . 25 United States Descent Judge 26 27 28

Case 5:22-cv-01003-JWH-MRW Document19 Filed 02/28/23 Page5bof5 Page ID #:58

1 | Presented by: | il — 9 | Hon. MichaelR. Wilner —————~CS~S 6 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28