Nayeh v. Las Colinas Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01874
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIRIAM NAYEL, ) Case No.: 25-CV-01874-BEN-KSC ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS WITH ) LEAVE TO AMEND 14 LAS COLINAS DETENTION ) FACILITY, THE COUNTY OF SAN 15 ) DIEGO, THE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S ) 16 DEPARTMENT, and VISTA ) DETENTION FACILITY, 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 19 Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint on July 30, 2025. 20 Plaintiff’s opposition was due on August 25, 2025. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 21 The Court deems the lack of opposition to be consent to the motion. See Local Rule 22 7.1(f)(2)(b) (“Waiver. A movant’s failure to file any papers required under the local rules 23 may be deemed as a waiver of the motion, or other request for ruling by the Court.”). 24 “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal. Before 25 dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors.” Ghazali v. 26 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 This Court in considering the dismissal of this action by the County of San Diego 28 weighs the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of | litigation (here, the interest is strong and satisfied by early dismissal); (2) the court’s need 2 IIto manage its docket (here, the interest is strong and satisfied by discouraging non- 3 compliance with local rules); (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants (here, the interest is 4 weak); (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits (here, the > || interest is weak—Plaintiff’s claim against the County of San Diego defendants is based 6 || on the Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments but those amendments independently do not 7 provide for a cause of action when an agency violates them. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 8 |! Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978) (Plaintiffs must bring a 42 U.S.C. § ? 1983 and prove that the constitutional violations were caused by a municipal policy or 10 practice.)); and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions (here, the interest is weak as 11 || dismissal is not imposed as a sanction). 12 Considering these factors, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, without 13 prejudice. Wave Plastic Surgery Ctr., Inc. v. Beauty Art Ctr., LLC, No. CV205125 14 || DSFMAAX, 2022 WL 2288315, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 202) (dismissing where party 15 || failed to file opposition brief) (citing V.V.V. & Sons Edible Oils Limited v. Meenakshi 16 || Overseas, LLC, 946 F.3d 542, 547 (9th Cir. 2019) (non-opposition to motion to dismiss 17 || waived any challenge to dismissal of the claims); Jenkins v. Cty. Of Riverside, 398 F.3d 18 || 1093, 1095 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005) (claims can be abandoned if their dismissal is unopposed); 19 || Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)). Accordingly, the Motion to 20 |! Dismiss is therefore GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND within thirty (30) days 21 || of this Order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 23 || DATED: September _5_, 2025 24 - ROGER T. BENIT 35 United States District Judge 26 27 28 -2-