ase 5:21-cv-02006-SB-MRW Document 13 Filed 06/03/22 Page1of5 Page ID #:87 3 JS-6 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 2 Case No. ED CV 21-2006 SB (MRW 13 | QUINTIN HOWARD, ass (MRW) Plaintiff ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Vv. FRCP 41(a) and (b) 16 | RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 The Court dismisses Plaintiff's action without prejudice based on 91 | Plaintiffs: (a) request for voluntary dismissal; and (b) failure to properly 99 | plead a plausible cause of action after several attempts. 23 □□ □ 24 1. This is a pro se civil action by an individual convicted of 25 | assaulting a peace officer.! In a series of proposed civil complaints, Plaintiff 96 | claims that Riverside sheriff's deputies used excessive force to arrest him 27 1 According to a police report that Plaintiff attached to a filing, after a car chase with local officers, Plaintiff “backed his vehicle up, crushing victim 28 | deputy # 1 between his door and his vehicle.” Dkt. No. 12, at 5.

Case 5:21-cv-02006-SB-MRW Document 13 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:88

1 (allegedly shooting at him 23 times) and conspired to make false statements 2 about his conduct to force his guilty plea. Dkt. Nos. 1, 5, 10. 3 2. Because Plaintiff sought in forma pauperis status with this 4 Court, Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the original complaint and 5 two later iterations pursuant to

(e)(2). Dkt. Nos. 4, 7, 11. 6 Judge Wilner declined to authorize Plaintiff to serve any of the three 7 complaints on any of the named defendants based on a variety of defects with 8 Plaintiff’s pleadings. These included: 9 a. Failing to name the individual(s) who allegedly shot at 10 Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 4, at 2. 11 b. Relying on federal criminal statutes for a civil cause of 12 action.

13 c. Improperly alleging supervisory liability for senior 14 Sheriff’s Department personnel with an inadequate factual 15 predicate. Dkt. No. 7, at 1–2. 16 d. Cursory, inconsistent, and implausible factual pleading of 17 alleged constitutional injury.

; Dkt. No. 11, at 2. 18 e. As to the claims of falsification of evidence / testimony that 19 led to Plaintiff’s guilty plea, Plaintiff’s civil cause of action 20 was Heck-barred by his criminal conviction. Dkt. No. 11, 21 at 1. 22 3. After reviewing the third version of Plaintiff’s complaint, 23 Judge Wilner noted that Plaintiff’s meager filings “strongly suggest that he 24 cannot properly advance this legal action.” Nevertheless, “in the interests of 25 fairness to a self-represented, prison-based litigant,” Judge Wilner allowed 26 Plaintiff an additional opportunity to attempt to amend his complaint to 27 state a legitimate cause of action. The magistrate judge’s order informed 28 2 Case 5:21-cv-02006-SB-MRW Document 13 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:89

1 Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint that complied with the 2 screening orders would lead to dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 41. Judge Wilner also offered Plaintiff the opportunity to 4 “voluntarily dismiss the entire action with no further consequence if he 5 believes that he is unable to satisfactorily litigate this matter in federal 6 court.

at 2–3 (citing Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019)). 8 4. Plaintiff filed a declaration (on a superior court form) with 9 several attachments by the deadline imposed in Judge Wilner’s last 10 screening order. Dkt. No. 12. The declaration cryptically states: 11 I am respectfully seeking third amendment complaint 12 to be, administratively filed closed, to resolve critical 13 errors with attorney counsel following administrative 14 review to be conduced once closed to be matter present. 15

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff attached an administrative complaint 16 (apparently submitted to the California Attorney General’s office, id. at 2) 17 regarding the underlying incident, plus various police records and orders 18 from this Court. 19 5. Notably, Plaintiff’s recent submission was neither in the form of 20 a civil complaint nor did it allege any plausible civil cause of action against 21 any party. To date, no defendant has been served with any version of 22 Plaintiff’s civil complaints. 23 * * * 24 6. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff 25 fails “to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 26 dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by 27 the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

, 629–30 (1962). 28 3 Case 5:21-cv-02006-SB-MRW Document 13 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:90

1 7. Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be appropriate to 2 advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation, the 3 court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice to 4 defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 5 Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition of 6 cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in its 7 evaluation. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). 8 * * * 9 8. A fair reading of Plaintiff’s recent filing strongly implies that he 10 wishes to voluntarily dismiss this action. Plaintiff’s submission—filed in 11 response to the magistrate judge’s observation that he could dismiss the 12 action—twice states that he wishes his action / complaint to be “closed.” Dkt. 13 No. 12, at 1. Further, by submitting a copy of his administrative “complaint 14 about peace officers,” id. at 2, Plaintiff appears to wish to abandon litigating 15 in federal district court in favor of pursuing alternative relief for his 16 grievance. 17 9. Although Plaintiff’s submission is not the model of grammatical 18 clarity, the substance and timing of the submission show that Plaintiff 19 wishes to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice. Under Rule 20 41(a)(1)(A)(i), he is entitled to do so (without a court order) before any 21 defendant responds to his claims. Plaintiff’s dismissal request will be 22 granted. 23 10. Even if Plaintiff’s filing were not a request for dismissal, Rule 24 41(b) would nonetheless mandate dismissal of the action. Plaintiff has had 25 four opportunities to plead a plausible, understandable, and facially 26 legitimate cause of action. He has failed to do so, even with the assistance of 27 several detailed orders from the magistrate judge that explained the obvious 28 4 ase 5:21-cv-02006-SB-MRW Document 13 Filed 06/03/22 Page5of5 Page ID#:91

1 | legal defects with his pleadings. Plaintiffs most recent filing, if not a 2 | voluntary dismissal, did not even attempt to assert a claim in the manner of 3 | acivil complaint. Plaintiffs inability to comply with the orders of the 4 | magistrate judge demonstrates that he has no interest in advancing the 5 | action here. 6 11. Bycontrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a strong 7 | interest in terminating this action. This is particularly true given that 8 ]| Plaintiff failed to file a recognizable fourth version of his complaint, which 9 | effectively shows that he has abandoned this case. Furthermore, because 10 | Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not comply with the magistrate judge’s 11 | previous orders, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective in moving this 12 | case forward. Carey,

. The Court concludes that dismissal 13 | is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Applied Underwriters,

. 14 12. The Court, in abundance of caution in light of Plaintiffs pro se 15 | status and the fact that he appears to be voluntarily dismissing this case, 16 | DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1s Dated: June 3, 2022 Oks 19 HON. STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 | Presented by: 22 23 LU [ 24) HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 25 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28