Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01825/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01825-1/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 

3:17-cv-01825-WQH-WVG 

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 

CESAR ROJAS,

CDCR #BA-4157,

Plaintiff,

vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01825-WQH-WVG

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

CESAR ROJAS (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on September 6, 

2017. (ECF No. 1). 

Plaintiff claims the County of San Diego violated his rights to due process and to 

be free from cruel and unusual punishment by “prolonging” his detention in County Jail, 

based on acts of perjury during what appear to be three separate San Diego Superior 

Court criminal proceedings held in 2011, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. Id. at 1, 3. He 

sought both general and punitive damages. Id. at 11–12. 

On November 21, 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 

Case 3:17-cv-01825-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-01825-WQH-WVG

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

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). (ECF No. 4).

Plaintiff was informed 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 further cautioned 

that his failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 9–10 (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 two months have passed since the Court’s November 21, 2017 Order, 

and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before January 5, 2018. Plaintiff has 

failed to file 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).

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) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to 

prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s November 21,

2017 Order (ECF No. 4).

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: February 20, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01825-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2