United States District Court, C.D. California
DONOVAN L. HALEY, Plaintiff,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
On October 16, 2013, the Court issued an "Order Re Leave to File Action Without Prepayment of Full Filing Fee, " denying Plaintiff's request to file a proposed Complaint without prepayment of the full filing fee. The Order was accompanied by an Attachment stating that: (1) Plaintiff had failed to allege standing to challenge to the constitutionality of most if not all of the alleged conditions in the Los Angeles County Jail; (2) Plaintiff's conclusory allegations of constitutional violations were insufficient; (3) the pro se Plaintiff could not represent other inmates; and (4) Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were moot. On November 12, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of that Order.
On February 25, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Order remanding the matter to this Court to afford Plaintiff, inter alia, an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
On March 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order granting Plaintiff leave to file, within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order: (1) a proposed First Amended Complaint attempting to cure the defects in the original Complaint described in the "Attachment" to the Court's October 16, 2013 Order; and (2) a "Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees With Declaration in Support, " accompanied by a certified copy of Plaintiff's trust fund statement for the past six (6) months and a current declaration authorizing disbursements from Plaintiff's prison trust account to pay any filing fee.
On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Request to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fees, etc." On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed an "Application to Amend Complaint and Proposed First Amended Complaint, " accompanied by a "Federal and State Civil Rights Complaint, etc." On March 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's "Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees, etc."
On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed: (1) an "Affidavit of Plaintiff Donovan L. Haley in Support of 8th and 14th Amendment Claims" ("Plaintiff's Affidavit"); and (2) a "Declaration of Plaintiff; Requests [sic] the Within Injunctive Orders, as Stated, and Daily Fines" ("Plaintiff's Declaration"). The Court deemed Plaintiff's "Federal and State Civil Rights Complaint, etc., " Plaintiff's Affidavit and Plaintiff's Declaration collectively to constitute Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
By "Order re First Amended Complaint, " filed April 27, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief without leave to amend and dismissed all of the other claims in the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days from April 27, 2014, within which to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to file timely a Second Amended Complaint in conformity with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action." Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file a Second Amended Complaint within the allotted time.
By Minute Order dated June 9, 2014, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for filing the Second Amended Complaint to June 30, 2014. Nevertheless, Plaintiff again failed to file a Second Amended Compliant within the allotted time, as extended.
The action should be dismissed without prejudice. The First Amended Complaint is defective for the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint within the allotted time. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R. , 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992), and has concluded ...