Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Edgar Plascencia, who was incarcerated at Centinela State Prison when he initiated this action, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that medical officials at Centinela violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide proper care and by failing to assign him to a lower bunk on the lower tier after his knee surgery at an outside facility on May 23, 2022. He further alleged that defendants failed to provide adequate medical care after he subsequently fell from his bunk.
On July 20, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, and dismissed most of the claims. The screening order determined that some allegations against Dr. Samuel Ko were sufficient to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim, while the remaining claims involving Ko and all claims against the other defendants failed to plausibly allege deliberate indifference. Plaintiff was given 45 days to choose either to amend his pleading in full or to proceed only with the sufficiently pled claim against Dr. Ko.
The Court’s Holding
On October 22, 2026, the Court dismissed the entire action without prejudice for failure to prosecute as required by its July 20, 2026 order and by S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b, and directed the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. The operative basis was Plaintiff's failure to respond to the screening order's choice and his failure to keep the Court advised of a current address after the order was returned by the postal service.
The July 20, 2026 order was mailed to the Centinela State Prison address Plaintiff provided when the case began. It was returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service on August 19, 2026, with a notation indicating that Plaintiff had been paroled. Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address before or since that return and, to date, had not complied with the order or contacted the Court in any way. The Court relied on Rule 41(b), Ninth Circuit authority recognizing discretion to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order, and Local Rule 83.11.b, which permits dismissal when a pro se plaintiff fails to notify the Court of a current address within 60 days after mail is returned.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se plaintiff's failure to keep the Court and opposing parties advised of a current address can support dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b.
- The Court treated Plaintiff's nonresponse to the screening order's choice—amend in full or proceed only against Dr. Ko—as failure to respond to an ultimatum, which Ninth Circuit precedent treats as properly met by a Rule 41(b) dismissal.
- The dismissal was expressly without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file, ending this action on procedural grounds rather than adjudicating the merits of the Eighth Amendment allegations.
- The earlier screening order had already narrowed the case to a single plausible deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Samuel Ko, while the remaining claims involving Ko and all claims against the other defendants had been dismissed for failure to plausibly allege deliberate indifference.
Why It Matters
The order shows how prisoner civil rights screening interacts with local address rules: after a court gives a plaintiff a defined choice, returned mail plus continued silence can justify involuntary dismissal without prejudice even though the underlying complaint alleged serious medical-care failures.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice and for failure to prosecute, it closes the present case procedurally while leaving the merits allegations unadjudicated; the order itself does not grant leave to amend, reopen the case, or predict any future refiling.