Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00114/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00114-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07-0114-4(m)dismissal.wpd -1- 07cv0114

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS DIPARRA, CDCR #J-95995Civil No. 07-0114 IEG (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m) vs.

PAROLE COMMUNITY SERVICES, et

al.;

Defendants.

Jose Luis DiParra (“Plaintiff”), formerly incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation

Center located in Norco, California and proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on January 16, 2007. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) but sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a claim and

for seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and (iii). See Feb. 2, 2007 Order at 7. Nonetheless, the Court provided

Plaintiff the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of

pleading identified by the Court. Id. On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint. The Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint survived the sua sponte

screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) only to the extent that Plaintiff was seeking

Case 3:07-cv-00114-IEG-POR Document 44 Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 2
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07-0114-4(m)dismissal.wpd -2- 07cv0114

injunctive relief in the form of a new parole eligibility review. See May 1, 2007 Order at 2

(citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005)). Thus, the Court determined Plaintiff was

entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf and ordered the U.S. Marshal to effect service on

Defendants. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff sought leave of Court to add an additional Defendant. See Decl.

by Plaintiff dated Nov. 1, 2007. The Court permitted Plaintiff to file a Second Amended

Complaint in order to add this Defendant. See Nov. 6, 2007 Order at 2. On February 1, 2008,

Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Based on a review of the docket, it

appeared that the only Defendant who had been properly served in this action is Defendant

Wickline. Defendant Wickline then filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint which was granted on April 24, 2008. 

In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause no later than May 9, 2008 why the

claims against the remaining Defendants should not be dismissed for want of prosecution

pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). See Apr. 24, 2008 Order at 8. To date, Plaintiff has failed to

provide the Court with any documentation demonstrating that any of the remaining Defendants

have been properly served. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES, without prejudice, this action

pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). 

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 10, 2008 _____________________________________

HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00114-IEG-POR Document 44 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 2