Mario Patino v. D. Dominguez, et al.

Case No. 3:25-cv-0589-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2026) · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · February 4, 2026 · No. 3:25-cv-0589-BAS-KSC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Mario Patino’s First Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(a), and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). The court granted Patino 45 days to file a complete Second Amended Complaint identifying all defendants and alleging specific facts supporting his claims concerning the removal of his religious necklace.

Holdings

  1. A complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8(a) when it does not provide each defendant fair notice of the claims asserted against that defendant, the grounds for those claims, and the specific conduct alleged to violate the plaintiff's rights.
  2. An amended complaint does not comply with Rule 10(a) when its caption identifies only one defendant followed by et al.; the caption must name all parties the plaintiff intends to sue.
  3. To state a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an individual defendant, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant personally participated in the deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.
  4. A pro se complaint should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the First Amended Complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement providing fair notice of the claims and their grounds.
  2. Whether the First Amended Complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a)'s requirement that the complaint's title name all parties.
  3. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated a plausible claim against D. Dominguez by alleging facts showing his personal participation in the alleged constitutional deprivation.
  4. Whether dismissal of the pro se plaintiff's First Amended Complaint should be without prejudice and accompanied by leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (12)

  • Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & n.3 (2007)(followed)
  • McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…