Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00504/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00504-3/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

3:19-cv-0504-CAB-NLS

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

JOHN LAKE,

CDCR# AF-8850,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-0504-CAB-NLS

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

FOR FAILING TO STATE A 

CLAIM;

(2) FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE 

IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 

ORDER REQUIRING 

AMENDMENT; AND 

(3) DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS MOOT

I. Procedural History

John Lake (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed at the Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a 

Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 13, 2019. (See

Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 17 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-0504-CAB-NLS

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

On May 3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

denied his motion to appoint counsel and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was 

informed of his pleading deficiencies and granted thirty (30) days leave in which to file an 

Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. at 12-13.

Plaintiff later filed a “Petition for Extension of Time, Appointment of Counsel” and 

sought a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 8. On July 16, 2019, the Court granted his 

request for an extension of time, denied his motion for appointment of counsel, and denied 

his request for injunctive relief. See ECF No. 9. Plaintiff was given an additional sixty 

(60) days leave to file his amended pleading. See id. at 4. Plaintiff filed a second “Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order” which was denied by the Court on August 8, 2019. ECF 

Nos. 11, 12. Plaintiff has now filed two additional motions seeking injunctive relief. See

ECF Nos. 14, 16.

However, more than two months have passed since the Court’s July 16, 2019 Order, 

but to date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not asked for 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).

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

R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s July 16, 2019 Order (ECF No. 9).

Plaintiff’s “Relief Request Stay Order from Further Transfers” and “Motion to 

Request Renew Amended TRO/Injunctive Relief” are DENIED as moot. (ECF Nos. 14, 

16.)

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 17 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-0504-CAB-NLS

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

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: September 20, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00504-CAB-NLS Document 17 Filed 09/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3