Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02747/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02747-1/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

3:16-cv-2747-JAH-WVG

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

DAVID J. CATALDO,

CDCR #T-79908,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF DEPUTY MADOX, Vista 

Detention Facility; JOHN DOES, GBDF 

Medical Staff; Dr. QUOC TRAN; 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-2747-JAH-WVG

ORDER:

1) REINSTATING ORDER 

GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY 

OF SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 35]

AND 

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b) 

On May 14, 2018, Defendant County of San Diego filed a Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See

ECF No. 35. Plaintiff, a prisoner then represented by pro bono counsel, filed a Notice of 

Non-Opposition, and on June 7, 2018, the Court granted the County’s Motion. See ECF 

Nos. 36, 37.

///

Case 3:16-cv-02747-JAH-WVG Document 55 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-2747-JAH-WVG

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

Nine months later, on March 25, 2019, after no further action on Plaintiff’s part, 

and after no waiver or proof of service upon any other Defendant named in the SAC had 

been filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1), the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the 

remainder of his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local 

Rule 41.1. See ECF No. 40. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Response (ECF No. 41), together 

with a Motion seeking to withdraw as Plaintiff’s counsel of record (ECF No. 42).

In light of these submissions, on May 6, 2019, the Court continued and re-set both 

matters for hearing on May 24, 2019. See ECF Nos. 44, 45. The Court ordered Plaintiff’s 

counsel to appear at that hearing, and to arrange for Plaintiff to appear telephonically. See

ECF No. 45. On May 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel’s Motion 

to Withdraw, set aside its previous Order granting the County’s Motion to Dismiss, and 

granted Plaintiff until September 10, 2019 to file an Opposition. See ECF Nos. 46, 47.

On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court requesting appointment of 

another pro bono attorney, and attaching portions of his medical records confirming his 

various physical ailments and learning disabilities. See ECF No. 50. But after he failed to 

file an Opposition on September 10, 2019, the County filed yet another Notice of NonOpposition, requesting that the Court’s June 7, 2018 Order be reinstated. See ECF No. 

51.

In the meantime, and in response to Plaintiff’s July 11, 2019 letter, the Court 

renewed its efforts to locate another volunteer to represent Plaintiff from its Pro Bono 

Panel, but was unsuccessful. On October 4, 2019, however, the Court held another

telephonic status hearing, notified both Plaintiff and County Counsel that it would 

continue its search, but cautioned Plaintiff he was not entitled to the appointment of 

counsel and would be required to prosecute his case pro se unless another attorney 

volunteered. See ECF No. 52. The Court then stayed the case and set another status 

hearing for December 16, 2019. See ECF No. 54. 

At the December 16, 2019 status hearing, Plaintiff indicated on the record that he 

was scheduled for early parole release sometime in January, but still wished to prosecute 

Case 3:16-cv-02747-JAH-WVG Document 55 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-2747-JAH-WVG

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

his case. Therefore, the Court agreed to continue its search for pro bono counsel, this time 

with the gracious assistance of the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, but again 

cautioned Plaintiff that if its attempts were unsuccessful, he would be required to proceed 

on his own. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to file a Notice of Change of Address 

upon his release from custody as required by S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b, and set another 

telephonic status hearing for February 10, 2020. See ECF No. 54.

On February 10, 2020, the Court held that hearing, but Plaintiff failed to appear. 

The Court confirmed Plaintiff is no longer in custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, and noted he has failed to comply with the Court’s 

December 16, 2019 Order requiring him to file a change of address. See 

https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Results.aspx (last visited Feb. 20, 2020); Pacheco v. 

Diaz, No. 1:19-CV-00774-SAB PC, 2019 WL 5073594, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 

2019) (“The Court may take judicial notice of public information stored on the CDCR 

inmate locator website.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-00774-

LJO-SAB PC, 2019 WL 5063451 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019); In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 

F.Supp.3d 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may take judicial notice of information on 

“publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick & 

Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1155 fn.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may 

take judicial notice of state agency records). County Counsel therefore again requested 

that the Court reinstate its June 7, 2018 Order granting its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

SAC with prejudice based both on his failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

The Court agrees dismissal is now appropriate.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

1) Reinstates its June 7, 2018 Order Granting Defendant County of San

Diego’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 35]; and

Case 3:16-cv-02747-JAH-WVG Document 55 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:16-cv-2747-JAH-WVG

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) Dismisses the remainder of this civil action in its entirety based on

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2020

Hon. John A. Houston

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02747-JAH-WVG Document 55 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4