Braggs v. San Diego Sheriff's Department, Dismissed
Summary
The US District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed a civil rights action filed by Michael Thomas Lekeith Braggs, a pro se inmate at the George Bailey Detention Facility in Santee, California. The plaintiff alleged excessive use of force during booking at San Diego Central Jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2025, with instructions to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 20, 2025. As of the date of this order, no Second Amended Complaint was filed. The action was dismissed with final judgment entered and the file closed.
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court SDCA Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Court dismissed the civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(1) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and separately for failure to prosecute following the plaintiff's failure to file a Second Amended Complaint by the court-ordered deadline of June 20, 2025. The dismissal is with prejudice as to the First Amended Complaint, and final judgment has been entered with the file closed.\n\nFor pro se inmates pursuing civil rights claims against law enforcement, this order underscores the procedural consequences of non-compliance with court orders to amend. Government agencies named as defendants in § 1983 actions should note the procedural posture — this case reached final judgment after two rounds of dismissals and an opportunity to amend, rather than a merits ruling on the underlying excessive-force allegation.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
Jan. 29, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Michael Thomas Lekeith Braggs v. San Diego Sheriff’s Department and San Diego Deputy Sergeant Q. Brock
District Court, S.D. California
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 3:24-cv-01772
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICHAEL THOMAS LEKEITH Case No.: 24-cv-01772-RBM-VET
BRAGGS,
12
BOOKING #24723149, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
13 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Plaintiff,
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
14
vs.
15
SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S
16 DEPARTMENT and SAN DIEGO
DEPUTY SERGEANT Q. BROCK,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20 On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff Michael Thomas LeKeith Braggs, an inmate at the
21 George Bailey Detention Facility in Santee, California, proceeding pro se, filed a civil
22 rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming he was subjected to the excessive
23 use of force while being booked into the San Diego Central Jail. (Doc. 1.) He also filed a
24 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.)
25 On October 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and dismissed
26 the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 3.) On November 29,
27 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and a second motion to proceed IFP.
28 (Docs. 4–5.) On May 9, 2025, the Court denied the second IFP motion as moot and
1 || dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff was
2 ||instructed that unless he filed a Second Amended Complaint on or before June 20, 2025,
3 ||the Court would enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on □□□□□□□□□□□
4 ||failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
5 |1§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)ai) & 1915A(b)(1), and failure to prosecute in compliance with a court
6 || order requiring amendment. (/d. at 6 (citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir.
7 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a
8 district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire
9 || action.”’).)
10 As of the date of this Order Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint,
11 || Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for failure to state a claim upon which
12 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2)(B)(1) & 1915A(b)(1), and for
13 || failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly and close
14 || the file.
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 ||Dated: January 28, 2026 RR Gs ? L >
i HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AA. A1IAAID □□□□□ WoT
Citations
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court SDCA Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from US District Court S.D. Cal..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court SDCA Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.