Edwards v. Shakiba et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting 31 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 8/18/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service and Plaintiff mailed a court-approved civil rights complaint form.) (tcf)

Case 3:18-cv-00179-MMA-LL Document 32 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.187 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 18cv179-MMA (LL)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

vs.

14
15
16

[Doc. No. 31]
P. SHAKIBA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Allen Edwards, a California inmate proceeding pro se, instituted this civil

19

rights action against officials at R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility for violation of his

20

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Doc. No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss

21

Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 14.

22

The Court denied Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim but

23

granted Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. See Doc. No.

24

18. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in order to

25

sufficiently allege his Fourteenth Amendment claim. In doing so, the Court admonished

26

Plaintiff that an amended complaint, if any, “must be complete in itself without reference

27

to the original complaint,” and “[a]ny claims not re-alleged in the amended complaint

28

will be considered waived.” Id. at 7 (citing S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; King v. Atiyeh, 814
1
18cv179-MMA (LL)

Case 3:18-cv-00179-MMA-LL Document 32 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.188 Page 2 of 4

1

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)).

2

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging only a Fourteenth Amendment claim

3

against Defendants; Plaintiff did not re-allege his Eighth Amendment claim. See Doc.

4

No. 19. Defendants moved to dismiss this action in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiff

5

waived his Eighth Amendment claim and failed to state a plausible Fourteenth

6

Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion; the Court

7

granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed this action without prejudice. See Doc. No.

8

24. The Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly on December 21, 2018. See Doc.

9

No. 25.

10

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff moved to reopen this case, stating only that he had

11

cured the deficiencies in his previous pleadings. See Doc. No. 28. Plaintiff attached a

12

proposed second amended complaint to his motion. See id. Plaintiff’s proposed second

13

amended complaint was in fact a near duplicate of Plaintiff’s original complaint.

14

Compare Doc. No. 1 with Doc. No. 28. The only difference was reflected in Plaintiff’s

15

prayer for relief which had been updated to specify the amount of alleged damages and a

16

recent signature. See Doc. No. 28 at 12. 1 The Court construed Plaintiff’s motion to

17

reopen the case liberally as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

18

Civil Procedure 60(b). See Doc. No. 29. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, stating in

19

pertinent part:

20

Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to relief from judgment in this case.
Plaintiff provides no explanation for why he failed to respond to Defendants’
motion to dismiss, seek reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order, or
otherwise litigate this action. Meanwhile, it has been more than a year and a
half since entry of judgment. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff attempted to
demonstrate mistake or excusable neglect – which he does not do – his motion
would be untimely. The Court notes further that it dismissed this action
without prejudice. As such, although Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from the
judgment in this case, he may file a new lawsuit in order to pursue his claims.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.
2
18cv179-MMA (LL)

Case 3:18-cv-00179-MMA-LL Document 32 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.189 Page 3 of 4

1
2

Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff now moves for clarification of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s

3

motion to reopen the case. See Doc. No. 31. According to Plaintiff, he does not

4

understand how to “comply with the Court’s Order expeditiously.” Id. at 1. Upon due

5

consideration of Plaintiff’s pro se status, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS

6

Plaintiff’s motion. The Court clarifies its previous order and the status of these

7

proceedings as set forth below.

8

Simply put, there is nothing left for Plaintiff to do in this action. Plaintiff

9

originally brought an Eighth Amendment claim and a Fourteenth Amendment claim

10

against Defendants. See Doc. No. 1. The Court found that Plaintiff stated a plausible

11

Eighth Amendment claim but failed to state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim.

12

See generally Doc. No. 18. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended

13

complaint to cure the deficiencies in his Fourteenth Amendment claim. See id. The

14

Court admonished Plaintiff that an amended complaint would supersede his original

15

complaint and claims not realleged would be waived. See id.

16

Plaintiff availed himself of the Court’s leave and filed an amended complaint;

17

however, he did not reallege an Eighth Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 19. Defendants

18

moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint on the grounds that he still did not state

19

a plausible Fourteenth Amendment claim. See Doc. No. 22. Defendants also pointed out

20

that Plaintiff had waived his Eighth Amendment claim. See id. Plaintiff had ample time

21

to respond to Defendants’ arguments but did not do so. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to

22

litigate the action, as well as this District’s Civil Local Rules, the Court granted

23

Defendants’ motion and dismissed this action without prejudice. See Doc. No. 24.

24

Eighteen months later, Plaintiff moved for relief from the Court’s dismissal order

25

but stated no valid legal grounds for such relief. See Doc. No. 28. As such, the Court

26

denied Plaintiff’s motion; the previously entered judgment is valid and this action

27

remains dismissed without prejudice. See Doc. No. 29. The case is closed. If Plaintiff

28

wishes to pursue his claims, he must do so by filing a new civil action.
3
18cv179-MMA (LL)

Case 3:18-cv-00179-MMA-LL Document 32 Filed 08/18/20 PageID.190 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a courtapproved civil rights complaint form for his use in filing a new civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 18, 2020

_______________________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
18cv179-MMA (LL)