Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00275-5/pdf.json

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

---

1 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Joseph Anthony Hill, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

San Diego Sheriff's Department Medical 

Services Division, San Diego Sheriff's 

Department; UCSD Medical Center; 

Alfred Joshua, M.D. Chief Medical 

Officer, Sheriff's Detention Services 

Bureau; William Gore, Sheriff San Diego 

County, 

Defendants.

 15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF 

CALIFORNIA’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

[Dkt. No. 18] 

 As a pretrial detainee, Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Hill filed this civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendants violated his constitutional right to be 

free from cruel and unusual punishment. The claims stem from events occurring on 

December 28, 2013, when Hill was shot during the process of his arrest. Immediately 

after the shooting he was treated at UCSD Medical Center. Hill complains that since the 

shooting he has not received follow-up medical treatment. Consequently, he alleges that 

Defendants San Diego Sheriffs Medical Services Division, UCSD Medical Center, Alfred 

Joshua, MD (Chief Medical Officer for the Sheriff Detention Services Bureau) and 

Sheriff William Gore have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by failing to 

provide continuing care. 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 12/31/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

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

 The court dismissed the claims against defendant the Regents of the University of 

California (the Regents), allowing Hill an opportunity to amend his claim against the 

Regents for failure to provide follow-up care. Hill never filed an amended complaint. 

The Regents now ask to be dismissed from this case with prejudice. 

For the following reasons, the court RECOMMENDS that the district judge 

DENY the Regents’ motion to dismiss, and that this denial be without prejudice to the 

Regents renewing their motion if Hill seeks to file an amended complaint. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On July 13, 2015, the district court adopted this court’s report and recommendation 

(R&R) regarding the Regents’ motion to dismiss. Hill was denied leave to amend his 

claim against the Regents for failure to provide adequate medical care. But he was given 

leave to amend his claim against the Regents for the alleged failure to provide follow-up

medical care. 

Hill’s amended complaint was due August 28, 2015. As of the date of this order, 

Hill has not filed an amended complaint. 

 On September 17, 2015 the court received notice that the “Order Adopting the 

Report and Recommendation” was returned as undeliverable because Hill is no longer 

located at George Bailey Detention Facility and is apparently on parole. Even though 

under Civil Local Rule 83.11.b Hill must notify the court of any change of address, he 

has not provided a forwarding address. 

 The Regents served this motion to dismiss on Hill’s former address. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard. 

A defendant may move for involuntary dismissal of an action “[i]f the plaintiff 

fails to prosecute or comply with these rules or a court order[.]” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b); 

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 953, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of 

action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to file an amended complaint within 60 

days). An involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) is with prejudice, and unless otherwise 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 12/31/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

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

stated, “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). 

A court will weigh five factors when considering a Rule 41(b) motion: 

(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 the defendants; 

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). 

“Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings in 

order to show that it considered these factors[.]” Id. at 1261. 

 Considering the first factor of expeditious resolution of cases, a delay of four years 

to file an amended complaint is considered unreasonable, while delays of four weeks, six 

weeks, or 79 days are not considered unreasonable. Schwenk v. Chula Vista Police Dept., 

2013 WL 1702776, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (finding a 79-day delay reasonable) (citing In re 

Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir.1994) (four-year delay is “clearly unreasonable”) and 

Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1984) (four week delay and likely a six week 

delay do not show prejudice to defendants). While the Ninth Circuit has stated that “the 

public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,” it also 

recognized that “judges are best situated to decide when delay in a particular case 

interferes with docket management and the public interest.” Yourish, 191 F.3d at 990 

(quoting Ash, 739 F.2d at 496). 

Here, the Regents moved for a Rule 41(b) dismissal only 42 days past the amended 

complaint deadline. That was an insignificant delay. As of the date of this order, at least 

125 days have passed since the deadline expired. But the order setting the deadline for 

Hill to file an answer was issued two days after the court issued its Order adopting the 

R&R, which was returned as undeliverable because Hill had already moved. The 

presumption, therefore, is that Hill never received the Order setting the August 28, 2015 

deadline to file an amended complaint because he had already moved. The court, 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 12/31/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

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

therefore, finds that the first factor does not weigh in favor of dismissal, because the 

delay is not clearly unreasonable in light of the unlikelihood that Hill ever knew of the 

deadline to file an amended complaint. 

 Regarding the court’s need to manage its docket, the Regents argue that this case 

has languished and consumed time and resources that could have been devoted to other 

matters. But after the court dismissed the case against the Regents and other defendants, 

Hill did not engage in any further litigation against them, and currently has no claims 

pending against them. No other court resources have been used in the case against the 

dismissed defendants, except for this motion to dismiss. 

 As for the third factor, the Regents argue they are prejudiced by the delay because 

this matter has come to a complete halt. They argue that they “have no ability to prepare 

this matter for trial given that as it currently stands, there are no causes of action pending 

against them.” Mem. Ps&As, p.6. By the Regents admission, it does not appear that they 

are prejudiced in this case, as there are no causes of action pending against them. Rather, 

this factor would be more appropriate to argue if Hill was in fact applying to file an 

amended complaint after the court’s deadline. See Castrillon v. El Centro Detention 

Center, 2009 WL 2762707 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (moving for a Rule 41(b) dismissal after 

plaintiff sought to file an amended complaint past the court-ordered deadline). 

The fourth factor of the public policy that favors disposition of cases on their 

merits weighs against dismissal. See id. at *1. 

 The factor regarding the availability of less drastic alternatives weighs against 

dismissal. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, the 

less drastic alternative is that the case remains dismissed against the Regents, with no 

claims pending against them. This appears to be a less drastic alternative that will not 

prejudice the Regents. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, this court RECOMMENDS that the district judge: 

(1)DENY the Regents’ motion to dismiss this case against them with prejudice; 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 12/31/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

15cv275 LAB (NLS) 

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

and 

(2)that the denial be without prejudice to the Regents refiling this motion, if Hill 

actually seeks to file an amended complaint against them. 

The court submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No later than January 26, 

2016, any party to this action may file written objections with the court and serve a copy 

on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 

Recommendation.” 

Any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties 

no later than February 2, 2016. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to those objections on appeal of the Court’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 31, 2015 

Case 3:15-cv-00275-LAB-NLS Document 23 Filed 12/31/15 Page 5 of 5