Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00534/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00534-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY McCLELLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KYLE W. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO FILE A

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH

COMPLIED WITH DIRECTIVES SET FORTH

IN ORDER OF JANUARY 18, 2008

(Docs. 23 and 24)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS

MOOT

(Docs. 12 and 17)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE FILE

On November 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case

recommended dismissal of this action, which at that time was designated as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. Plaintiff/Petitioner Gregory McClellan (“McClellan”) filed objections and on

January 18, 2008, the Court issued an order granting McClellan thirty days within which to file a

second amended complaint and, based on McClellan’s objections, the Court re-designated this as

a civil rights action. In the order, the Court stated, “[B]ecause it appears Petitioner’s vague claims

may have resulted in the court mistakenly re-designating this action twice, the court will not attempt

to ‘guess’ again and the court will order Petitioner to file an amended complaint in which he clarifies

the exact claims underlying this action. To avoid further confusion, Petitioner is directed to specify

///

Case 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

only those facts supporting his specific claims and not include any allegations about other areas.”

(Doc. 23, 3:5-9.)

On February 19, 2008, McClellan filed a second amended complaint which is virtually

identical to his first amended complaint. The only differences between the two are that McClellan

omitted one sentence on the last page of the second amended complaint and omitted three prayers

for relief. McClellan failed redraft his statement of claim to clarify his claim and allege only those

facts necessary to support those claims. 

In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set

forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” id.

(quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the action

has been pending for almost one year, with the case being re-designated from a civil rights action

to a habeas action back to a civil rights action due to the lack of clarity in McClellan’s complaint.

The Court attempted more than once to save McClellan from himself and the Court cannot continue

to expend its scare resources assisting a litigant who will not help himself by submitting an amended

pleading making the clarifications required by the Court. Thus, both the first and second factors

weigh in favor of dismissal.

Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in and

of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently increases the

risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it is McClellan’s

failure set forth clear claims in the first instance and to clarify his claims as ordered in the second

instance that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor weight in favor of dismissal.

As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little

available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the

Case 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 In his objections, upon which the Court relied in giving him leave to amend, McClellan asserted he was 1

attempting to pursue First Amendment claims based on free exercise of religion, free association, free speech,

familial association, and right to privacy. (Doc. 20, 2:1-5.)

3

Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. McClellan is proceeding in

forma pauperis in this action, making monetary sanctions of little use, and given the early stage of

these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not available. However, inasmuch as

the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, the Court is stopping short of issuing

the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always weigh

against dismissal. Id. at 643.

In weighing the five factors, the scale tips toward dismissal. Based on McClellan’s

objections, the Court allowed McClellan another opportunity to amend and provided him with some

guidance. Despite this, McClellan failed to cure the deficiencies by redrafting his pleading in a

manner which clarified his claims and included only those facts which supported his claims that his

constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated. Because McClellan failed to comply 1

with the directives set forth in the Court’s order, this action shall be dismissed, without prejudice.

In light of the dismissal, McClellan’s pending motions for preliminary injunctive relief shall be

denied as moot.

For the reasons set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on McClellan’s failure to file a

second amended complaint which complied with the directives set forth in the

Court’s order of January 18, 2008; 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, filed August 30, 2007, and

November 13, 2007, are DENIED as moot in light of the dismissal of this action; and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00534-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3