Sharon N. Dailey v. Wellpath, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00669
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON N. DAILEY, No. 2:24-cv-00669-DAD-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 14 WELLPATH, et al., PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND CLOSING THIS 15 Defendants. ACTION 16 (Doc. No. 16) 17 18 Plaintiff Sharon N. Dailey is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 9, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. No. 16) be dismissed 23 without leave to amend. (Doc. No. 23.) In particular, the assigned magistrate judge found that 24 plaintiff’s first amended complaint in this case sets forth allegations which are duplicative of 25 claims raised by plaintiff in an earlier case, Dailey v. Ellis, No. 2:23-cv-00786-TLN-CSK (E.D. 26 Cal.). (Id. at 2.) Because the instant action involves the same allegations against the same 27 defendants, the assigned magistrate judge recommended dismissal of this action without further 28 leave to amend. (Id.) The pending findings and recommendations were served upon the parties 1 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 2 service. (Id. at 3.) On July 10, 2025, several months after objections were due, plaintiff filed 3 untimely objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 26.) 4 Plaintiff’s objections are primarily a response to a “Notice of Discharge and Injunction” 5 filed by defendants Wellpath and Nagar regarding the effect of a separate bankruptcy order on 6 this action.1 (Doc. Nos. 25, 26 at 1.) Plaintiff’s only objection to the pending findings and 7 recommendations is that the present action is not duplicative because there are “no other open or 8 pending cases” involving the same allegations or defendants. (Doc. No. 26 at 1.) The court 9 observes that Dailey v. Ellis was dismissed by the court on March 31, 2025 for failure to 10 prosecute. No. 2:23-cv-00786-TLN-CSK (Doc. No. 24) (E.D. Cal.). Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedure 41 provides that, “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise,” an involuntary 12 dismissal for failure to prosecute “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 41(b). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has held that a dismissal order based on a failure to 14 prosecute without any qualification is with prejudice. Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 15 1237 (9th Cir. 1979) (finding that dismissal “for want of prosecution” was with prejudice); see 16 also Kisaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., No. 2:21-cv-04757-CJC-GJS, 2021 WL 5921471, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 17 Nov. 15, 2021) (collecting Ninth Circuit authority), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 18 WL 5988267 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021). Therefore, a prior action being dismissed for failure to 19 prosecute does not remove the bar against subsequent duplicative actions, because under Rule 20 41(b) the prior dismissal is with prejudice. See Love v. Tri Counties Bank, No. 2:24-cv-01823- 21 TLN-CSK, 2025 WL 435926, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2025) (finding that the defendant would be 22 deprived of an earlier judgment for failure to prosecute if duplicative action were allowed to 23 proceed), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 790201 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2025); see 24 also Brooks v. Brooks, No. 15-cv-05237-HRL-PR, 2016 WL 9686997, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 25 2016) (finding that the action before the court was duplicative of a prior action which was 26 ///// 27 1 The court does not address the impact of this discharge notice on this action because it 28 dismisses the action for separate reasons. 1 | dismissed for failure to prosecute). Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff's objections provide 2 | no basis upon which to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(©), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 For the reasons above, 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 9, 2024 (Doc. No. 23) are 8 ADOPTED in full; 9 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. No. 16) is DISMISSED without leave to 10 amend; and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 19, 2025 Dal A. 2d, aryek 14 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28