Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02688/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02688-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,

CDCR # V-15331,

Civil No. 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

PARTIAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT

TO FED.R.CIV.P. 54(b) AS TO

DEFENDANTS McGEE, LAROCCO,

SAVALA, LUNA, AND GARCIA

AND

(2) DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

KEMP, ANDERSEN, AND CRESPO

TO FILE AN ANSWER AS TO THE

EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS IN

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.

12(a)(4)(A)

 vs.

V. KEMP, Correctional Officer; 

A. ANDERSEN, Correctional Officer; 

A. LAROCCO, Correctional Officer; 

J. LUNA, Correctional Officer; 

C. CRESPO, Correctional Officer; 

J. McGEE, Correctional Officer;

G. SAVALA, Correctional; Lieutenant; 

E. GARCIA, Correctional Captain,

Defendants.

 

Keith Wayne Sekerke (“Plaintiff”), formerly incarcerated at the California Correctional

Institution in Tehachapi, is proceeding in this civil action in pro se and in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-FRCP54b&Answer .wpd -1- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 28 Filed 06/20/13 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

I. Procedural History

On March 12, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) [ECF Doc. No. 21]. 

Specifically, the Court denied Defendant Kemp, Andersen and Crespo’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s excessive force claims as alleged in Count 1, but granted Defendant McGee and

Larocco’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s inadequate medical treatment claims (also in Count 1). 

The Court further dismissedPlaintiff’s due process claims against Defendants Andersen, Crespo,

Kemp, McGee and Larocco as alleged in Count 2, as well as Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims

against Defendants Andersen, Crespo, Kemp, McGee, Larocco, Savala, Luna, and Garcia

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 as alleged in Count 3. See March 21, 2013 Order [ECF

Doc. No. 21] at 17. Plaintiff was granted the option of either filing an Amended Complaint in

light of the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court within forty-five (45) days, or filing a

“Notice of Intention to Proceed with his Original Complaint” as to his Eighth Amendment

excessive force claims against Defendants Kemp, Andersen and Crespo only. Id.

On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF Doc. No.

23], followed by a Notice of Change of Address on April 24, 2013, in which he indicated he had

been released from state custody, but nevertheless wished “to proceed in pro se with all [his]

complaints.” See ECF Doc. No. 26 at 1. 

About a week later, on May 1, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel, but also granted him an extension of time in which to comply with the Court’s

March 21, 2013 Order in light of his change in circumstances. See ECF Doc. No. 27 at 4-5. The

Court once again directed Plaintiff to either “a) file with the Court and serve upon Defendants

an Amended Complaint which addresses all the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s

March 12, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 21]; or b) file and serve a “Notice of Intention to Proceed

with his Original Complaint” as to the Eighth Amendment claims currently alleged in Count 1

against Defendants Kemp, Andersen, and Crespo only.” Id. Plaintiff was given until May 31,

2013 to comply. Id. at 5. That date has now passed without any action by Plaintiff whatsoever.

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-FRCP54b&Answer .wpd -2- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 28 Filed 06/20/13 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

II. Discussion

A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute. Chambers v.

NASCO, Inc. 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (citing Link v. Wabash, 370 U.S. 626, 63-32 (1962) (“The

authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered

an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in

courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of

cases.”). Thus, in addition to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal

of “the action or any claim” upon motion by a defendant “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or

to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order,” a court may also

exercise its inherent power to dismiss for the same reasons. FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b); Chambers, 501

U.S. at 41; Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 68, 689 (9th Cir.

2005). A dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) “operates as an adjudication on the

merits.” FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) further provides:

[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief–whether

as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim–or when

multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties

only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for

delay.

FED.R.CIV.P. 54(b); Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Corp., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). 

III. Conclusion and Order

Because Plaintiff has failed to state any claim against Defendants McGee, Larocco,

Savala, Luna, or Garcia, and has further failed to file an Amended Complaint after being

provided with an explanation of his pleading deficiencies and granted extensions of time in

which to do so, the Court hereby DISMISSES these parties based on Plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute. 

Further, as there are no remaining claims against Defendants McGee, Larocco, Savala,

Luna, or Garcia and no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to enter

a partial judgment as to these Defendants pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 54(b). Because the Court

has denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claims as to Defendants

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-FRCP54b&Answer .wpd -3- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 28 Filed 06/20/13 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

Kemp, Andersen and Crespo as alleged in “Count 1” of Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, those

claims remain before the Court. 

Accordingly, Defendants Kemp, Andersen, and Crespo are hereby DIRECTED to file an

Answer as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claims no later than July 15, 2013. See FED.R.CIV.P.

12(a)(4)(A). Thereafter, United States Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler shall set a case

management conference hearing on his calendar pursuant to S.D. CAL. CIVLR 16.1(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\11cv2688-FRCP54b&Answer .wpd -4- 11cv2688 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02688-BTM-JMA Document 28 Filed 06/20/13 Page 4 of 4