Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02317/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02317-0/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

3:16-cv-02317-CAB-BLM

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

DOUGLAS LYNN RISKAS,

CDCR #AY-4846,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02317-CAB-BLM

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND

§ 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

DOUGLAS LYNN RISKAS (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, and incarcerated at the 

California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged the County of San Diego, 

San Diego County Sheriff William Gore, and 50 unidentified deputies at George Bailey 

Detention Facility failed to protect him from assault, and failed to provide him adequate 

medical care while he was a pretrial detainee there in late 2015 and early 2016. (ECF No. 

1 at 9-23.)

I. Procedural Background

On February 10, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 

Case 3:16-cv-02317-CAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-02317-CAB-BLM

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

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff 

was informed of his various pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to 

file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at 5-14.) Indeed, the Clerk of Court provided him a blank 

copy of the Court’s form § 1983 Complaint for his use in amending. (Id. at 14.)

Almost four months have passed since the Court’s February 10, 2017 Order. But 

Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, nor has he requested an extension of time

in which to do so.

“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.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). “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 February 10, 2017 Order (ECF No. 

5).

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 to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02317-CAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2