Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01936/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01936-1/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

19cv1936

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

GREGORY LEON SPATCHER, CDCR #BJ-9222,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORI BAIRD; TRI CITY MEDICAL 

CENTER; OCEANSIDE POLICE 

DEP’T,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01936-BAS (MSB)

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE 

A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) AND § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Gregory Spatcher, currently housed at the California Institution for Men

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 4, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

On October 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.)

Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted 45 days leave in which to file 

an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 7–8.)

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before December 9, 2019. However, 

although nearly three months have passed since the Court issued its October 24, 2019 

Order, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, requested an extension of time in 

Case 3:19-cv-01936-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1936

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

which to do so, or indicated that he intends to dismiss the action.

“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)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to 

prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s October 24,

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: January 23, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01936-BAS-MSB Document 4 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2