Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00397/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00397-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGIE AYALA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 15cv397-LAB (PCL)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 3, the Court dismissed the first amended complaint and directed

Plaintiffs, if they thought they could amend, to file an ex parte motion for leave to do so,

attaching their proposed second amended complaint as an exhibit. They were also ordered

to show cause why the Doe Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve. Both

were to have been done by March 1, 2017.

On the deadline, Plaintiffs attempted to circumvent the Court’s order by filing a grossly

noncompliant second amended complaint that was not attached to a motion. They also 1

The second amended complaint violated the Court’s legibility requirements in 1

numerous ways. See Civil Local Rule 5.1. Even though Plaintiffs’ counsel had been warned

multiple times about compliance with the Court’s electronic filing requirement and cautioned

that future noncompliant filings would be rejected, they persisted in disobeying that rule. See

Civil Local Rule 5.4. It also violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 in that Plaintiffs attempted to file it

without leave, and it violated Court’s February 3 order requiring that it be attached as an

exhibit to an ex parte motion. See also Civil Local Rule 15.1(b) (requirements for motions

for leave to amend). Each of these violations by itself would have justified rejection of the

filings. Considered together and in light of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s persistent violations in the face

of warnings, they cannot be construed as mere excusable neglect.

- 1 - 15cv397

Case 3:15-cv-00397-LAB-PCL Document 39 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

submitted a motion for leave to take early discovery, and an unsigned affidavit. But because

of a delay in forwarding those documents to chambers on a discrepancy order, see Civil

Local Rule 5.1(f), the fact that no filings appeared in the docket led the Court to believe none

had been filed. The Court therefore dismissed the case and entered judgment. 

When the documents were forwarded to chambers, the Court issued an order

correcting various problems and specifically ordering Plaintiffs’ counsel to comply with

certain requirements. (See Order of March 7, 2017 (Docket no. 37).) Specifically, the Court

initially accepted the three documents for filing, but then struck the unsigned affidavit and

the noncompliant second amended complaint. It vacated the earlier dismissal and entry of

judgment, and ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to file their motion for leave to amend by March 15,

2017 at the very latest. It also ordered them to comply with local electronic filing

requirements and cautioned them that any further violations of those requirements would

result in rejection of the submitted documents and sanctions. 

By a separate order issued that same day, the Court denied the request for early

discovery and dismissed claims against the Doe Defendants for failure to serve. (See

Docket no. 38.) After that dismissal, the only Defendant left in this case is the County of

Imperial, which is alleged to be doing business as the Imperial County Sheriff’s Office, the

Imperial County District Attorney’s Office, and the Imperial County Narcotics Task Force.2

The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an ex parte motion for leave to amend. (Docket no.

37 at 2:15–16.) They were ordered to do this no later than March 15, 2017, and were

specifically cautioned that if they did not obey the Court’s order, the action would be

dismissed without leave to amend:

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

The Court does not accept as true the conclusory allegation that the task force is an 2

arm of the county rather than a separate entity. (See Docket no. 27 at 11:24–13.) But the

District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s offices have been treated as part of the county, and have

never been served. 

- 2 - 15cv397

Case 3:15-cv-00397-LAB-PCL Document 39 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiffs must file this motion by March 15, 2017 at the very latest; if they

do not, or if their motion or proposed second amended complaint does

not comply with this order, this action will be dismissed without leave

to amend.

(Docket no. 37 at 2:19–21) (emphasis in original).

March 15 has passed, however, and Plaintiffs have not obeyed the Court’s

order in spite of warnings. Because Plaintiffs were given leave to amend their

complaint to state a claim against the County (see Docket no. 27 at 13:26–27,

14:2–4) and have failed to do so, the Court infers that they cannot do so

successfully. The Court concludes that further leave to amend (even if they had

asked for it) would be futile, and that leave to amend should be denied for that

reason. See Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013).

The holding in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.1992) is instructive

here. The panel pointed out why dismissal was appropriate there:

The court granted Ferdik two opportunities to amend his complaint

(each time expressly warning him that failure to timely amend would

result in dismissal); gave him the guidance necessary for him to

submit a properly amended first complaint; and even went as far as

vacating the dismissal it had entered after appellant failed to timely file

his second amended complaint in the first instance. Moreover, in

striking his second amended complaint as deficient, the magistrate's

order set out the language of Rule 10(a), clearly explained the reason

the complaint was being stricken . . ., and gave Ferdik an additional

thirty days in which to refile a conforming complaint. Finally, that same

order reiterated that Ferdik's failure to comply with the order would

result in dismissal.

963 F.2d at 1261 (footnotes omitted). Here, Plaintiffs were treated comparably

even though as represented parties they not entitled to the same leeway as the

plaintiff in Ferdik, who was proceeding pro se. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d

915, 924 (9th Cir.1986). 

If the case were not already subject to dismissal on the merits, it could just

as easily be dismissed for disobedience to the Court’s orders, and for failure to

prosecute. See Civil Local Rules 16.1(b) and 83.1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/ / /

/ / /

- 3 - 15cv397

Case 3:15-cv-00397-LAB-PCL Document 39 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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 complaint, and this action as a whole, are DISMISSED WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv397

Case 3:15-cv-00397-LAB-PCL Document 39 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4