Donovan L Haley v. County of Los Angeles
Filing
42
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is Ordered that Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action without prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 R&R) (sp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DONOVAN L. HALEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
NO. CV 13-7304-AG(E)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable
19
Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States
21
District Court for the Central District of California.
22
23
PROCEEDINGS
24
25
On October 16, 2013, the Court issued an “Order Re Leave to File
26
Action Without Prepayment of Full Filing Fee,” denying Plaintiff’s
27
request to file a proposed Complaint without prepayment of the full
28
filing fee.
The Order was accompanied by an Attachment stating that:
1
(1) Plaintiff had failed to allege standing to challenge to the
2
constitutionality of most if not all of the alleged conditions in the
3
Los Angeles County Jail; (2) Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of
4
constitutional violations were insufficient; (3) the pro se Plaintiff
5
could not represent other inmates; and (4) Plaintiff’s claims for
6
injunctive relief were moot.
7
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of that Order.
On November 12, 2013, the Court denied
8
9
On February 25, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
10
Ninth Circuit issued an Order remanding the matter to this Court to
11
afford Plaintiff, inter alia, an opportunity to file an amended
12
complaint.
13
14
On March 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order granting
15
Plaintiff leave to file, within thirty (30) days of the date of the
16
Order: (1) a proposed First Amended Complaint attempting to cure the
17
defects in the original Complaint described in the “Attachment” to the
18
Court’s October 16, 2013 Order; and (2) a “Request to Proceed Without
19
Prepayment of Filing Fees With Declaration in Support,” accompanied by
20
a certified copy of Plaintiff’s trust fund statement for the past six
21
(6) months and a current declaration authorizing disbursements from
22
Plaintiff’s prison trust account to pay any filing fee.
23
24
On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Proceed without
25
Prepayment of Filing Fees, etc.”
26
an “Application to Amend Complaint and Proposed First Amended
27
Complaint,” accompanied by a “Federal and State Civil Rights
28
Complaint, etc.”
On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed
On March 26, 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted
2
1
Plaintiff’s “Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees,
2
etc.”
3
4
On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed: (1) an “Affidavit of Plaintiff
5
Donovan L. Haley in Support of 8th and 14th Amendment Claims”
6
(“Plaintiff’s Affidavit”); and (2) a “Declaration of Plaintiff;
7
Requests [sic] the Within Injunctive Orders, as Stated, and Daily
8
Fines” (“Plaintiff’s Declaration”).
9
“Federal and State Civil Rights Complaint, etc.,” Plaintiff’s
The Court deemed Plaintiff’s
10
Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Declaration collectively to constitute
11
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
12
13
By “Order re First Amended Complaint,” filed April 27, 2014, the
14
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive
15
relief without leave to amend and dismissed all of the other claims in
16
the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.
17
Plaintiff thirty days from April 27, 2014, within which to file a
18
Second Amended Complaint.
19
“[f]ailure to file timely a Second Amended Complaint in conformity
20
with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.”
21
Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file a Second Amended Complaint
22
within the allotted time.
The Court granted
The Court cautioned Plaintiff that
23
24
By Minute Order dated June 9, 2014, the Court sua sponte extended
25
the deadline for filing the Second Amended Complaint to June 30, 2014.
26
Nevertheless, Plaintiff again failed to file a Second Amended
27
Compliant within the allotted time, as extended.
28
///
3
1
DISCUSSION
2
3
The action should be dismissed without prejudice.
4
Amended Complaint is defective for the reasons stated in the
5
Memorandum and Order.
6
Complaint within the allotted time.
7
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing
8
actions for failure to prosecute.
9
629-30 (1962); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The First
Plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended
The Court has inherent power to
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626,
The Court has considered
10
the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th
11
Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992), and has concluded that
12
dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
13
drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of
14
this case.
In particular, any less
15
16
RECOMMENDATION
17
18
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the
19
Court issue an Order:
20
Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing
21
the action without prejudice.
(1) accepting and adopting this Report and
22
23
DATED: July 14, 2014.
24
25
26
______________/S/_________________
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
4
1
2
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of
3
Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file
4
objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of
5
Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials
6
appear in the docket number.
7
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of
8
the judgment of the District Court.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No notice of appeal pursuant to the
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?