Lisa M Bernal v. Providence Health, 2:20-cv-10292

Pro se plaintiff Lisa M. Bernal filed an 181‑page complaint on Nov. 9, 2020 against over 100 defendants; was granted in forma pauperis status.
Court permitted a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on Mar. 17, 2021; the FAC alleged 39 causes of action including civil‑rights and employment claims and a broad conspiracy involving many public and private actors.
On Apr. 12, 2021 the Court dismissed the FAC with leave to amend because it was unwieldy, misjoined many unrelated claims, included delusional/fantastical allegations, and the Court instructed Bernal to use court forms, file separate suits for unrelated claims, and not reassert certain claims dismissed with prejudice.
Bernal filed a 285‑page Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May 7, 2021 that ignored the Court’s instructions: it was not on the required form, reasserted claims previously dismissed with prejudice, and added numerous frivolous allegations.
The Court applied Rule 41(b) and its inherent docket control, considered the Ferdik five‑factor framework, found factors favoring dismissal (public interest in expedition, docket management, prejudice to defendants, and lack of less drastic alternatives), and concluded the SAC failed to state a claim.
Order: the action was dismissed with prejudice on May 17, 2021 for failure to comply with court orders and failure to state a claim; plaintiff may appeal the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bernal)	Defendant's Argument (Defendants)	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to comply with court orders is warranted	Bernal effectively stands on her SAC and has a right to proceed with her allegations	Defendants argue Bernal ignored explicit instructions (use forms, omit barred claims) and misjoined claims, warranting dismissal	Court dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply under Rule 41(b) and inherent authority
Whether dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate	Bernal contends her allegations are sufficient to state claims	Defendants contend SAC is conclusory, nonsensical, and includes previously barred claims so it fails to state any viable claim	Court found SAC fails to state a claim and refused to order service
Whether lesser sanctions are available	Bernal implicitly argues the Court should permit the case to proceed	Defendants argue no lesser sanction will cure refusal to follow explicit, repeated instructions	Court concluded no less drastic alternative was available given repeated noncompliance and frivolousness
Whether misjoined/unrelated claims require separate suits	Bernal maintains broad conspiracy allegations across many events and defendants	Defendants argue claims involve unrelated events/defendants and must be brought in separate actions per Court’s instruction	Court reaffirmed prior instruction that unrelated claims must be litigated separately and relied on misjoinder as a basis for dismissal consequences

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to follow court order)
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (court’s authority to control its docket, including dismissal)
Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing district courts’ inherent power to manage dockets)
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (harshness of dismissal tied to likelihood of plaintiff’s success)
Seto v. Thielen, [citation="519 F. App'x 966"] (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding dismissal where plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with court orders)
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (pro se plaintiff may stand on complaint but court need not order service of patently deficient pleadings)