Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00163/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00163-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-00163-LAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMADO VERGARA,

Booking #18177136,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ESCONDIDO POLICE

DEPARTMENT; SAN MARCOS 

SHERIFFS; JESICA ATKINS; MARK 

WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00163-LAB-NLS

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b) AND 

FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT

ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Amado Vergara (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego Central Jail, and 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 

January 24, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claimed the Escondido Police 

Department, San Marcos Sheriffs, and two private citizens violated his Fourth and 

Fifth Amendment rights during March, April, and May 2018 San Diego County 

Superior Court criminal proceedings involving the violation of an allegedly expired 

restraining order against him and false charges of child abduction. (Id. at 1-4.)

I. Procedural History

On May 7, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which 

Case 3:19-cv-00163-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-00163-LAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See 

ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days 

leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 5-10.) Plaintiff 

was also cautioned, however, that if he failed to file an Amended Complaint that 

cured his pleading defects, the Court would dismiss his case. (Id. at 11, citing Lira 

v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take 

advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 

dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before June 21, 2019, and 

more than two months have passed since the Court issued its May 7, 2019 Order. 

But to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested 

an extension of time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 

respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by indicating 

to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 

dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can 

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his 

failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s 

May 7, 2019 Order.

The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 

judgment of dismissal and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: July 8, 2019 _________________________________

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00163-LAB-NLS Document 6 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2