Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00154/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00154-0/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

 17cv0154

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

DONNIE RAY McKINLEY, JR.,

CDCR #H83058,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. RUDDY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-0154-BAS-WVG

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR (1) FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM AND (2) FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE

Donnie Ray McKinley, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), while housed at Centinela State Prison 

located in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (ECF No. 1). On May 16, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon 

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

ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was informed of his various pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 

days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 11−12.) Plaintiff was further cautioned that his 

failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 12 (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.”)).) More than five months have passed since the 

Court’s May 16, 2017, 2017 Order, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or 

Case 3:17-cv-00154-BAS-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

 17cv0154

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

about July 1, 2017. But to date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint. “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).

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) and §1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s May 16, 2017 Order (ECF No. 3). 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: November 8, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00154-BAS-WVG Document 4 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2