Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00647/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00647-1/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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

FILED 

AUG O 7 2019 

CLERK, u.s rn~-;-~-.,,cr COURT 

SOUTHl::RN S'f~:C'T OF- t.;ALll=ORNIA 

BY _I:.rc ,:,:_n_-_:' ' 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND THOMAS GARCIA, Jr., 

Booking # 1902300268, 

vs. 

RAYMOND MADDEN, 

Superintendent I CSP Warden, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS 

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 

Plaintiff Raymond Thomas Garcia, Jr., formerly incarcerated at the San Bernardino 

20 County Sheriff Department's Central Detention Center, and proceeding prose, submitted 

21 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 5, 2019, together with a motion 

22 to proceed in forma pauperis, and followed by several miscellaneous filings. (See ECF Nos. 

23 1, 2, 4, 7.) 

24 While the basis for his claims was not at all clear, the Court liberally construed 

25 Plaintiffs Complaint as a challenge to the validity of both his past terms of imprisonment, 

26 as well as his current term of confinement. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1, 4-5, 11-13.) 

27 Plaintiff sought monetary damages for every day he claims to have been "wrongfully held" 

28 dating back to 2008, and he alleged Defendant Madden, the Warden of Centinela State 

3: 19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS Document 11 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 Prison, together with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and 

2 other state prison and Bureau of Prison Terms officials were liable for having miscalculated 

3 his custody credits and lengthening his term of imprisonment. (Id. at 5, 8, 11-13.) 

4 I. Procedural History 

5 On June 5, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but 

6 dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be granted 

7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and denied his miscellaneous 

8 motions as moot. (See ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and 

9 the Court gave him forty-five days in which to file an amended complaint that fixed them. 

IO (Id. at 4-9.) Plaintiff was also cautioned, however, that if he failed to file an amended 

11 complaint that alleged a plausible claim for relief and complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) 

12 within that time, the Court would dismiss his case. (Id. at 8-9 & n.2; see also Lira v. 

13 Herrera, 427 F .3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) ("If a plaintiff does not take advantage of 

14 the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 

15 complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.")). 

16 Two months have passed since the Court issued its June 5, 2019 Order, and more 

1 7 than two weeks have come and gone since Plaintiffs amended complaint was due. But to 

18 date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and has not requested an extension of 

19 time in which to do so. 1 "The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court's 

20 

21 

22 

23 

1 On June 10, 2019, just five days after the Court issued its Order, Plaintiff filed a Notice 

of Change of Address. (See ECF No. 9.) When the Court's June 5, 2019 Order was returned 

undelivered by the U.S. Post Office with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer in custody 24 

on June 18, 2019, the docket reflects the Clerk of Court re-mailed the Court's June 5, 2019 

Order to Plaintiff at his new address in Rialto, California. (See ECF No. 8). The June 18, 

2019 re-mailing has not been returned undelivered. When "[o]fficial court records show 26 that the order ... was mailed to [ a party]' s address of record," that "is enough to raise the 

27 applicable presumption" that the party received the document. Sabbath v. United States, 

28 No. LA CR 07-01130-VBF, 2015 WL 13048618, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2015); Quansah 

v. 7-Eleven Store No. 25561, 2009 WL 1885621, *2 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009). 

25 

2 

3:19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS Document 11 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 ultimatum-either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not 

2 do so-is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41 (b) dismissal." Edwards v. Marin Park, 

3 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 

4 II. Conclusion and Orders 

5 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 

6 based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant 

7 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and§ 1915A(b)(l), and his failure to prosecute pursuant 

8 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court's June 5, 2019 Order. 

9 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 

10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 

11 dismissal and close the file. 

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

13 

t(~ 14 Dated: 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

. Hayes 

District Judge 

3: 19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:19-cv-00647-WQH-BGS Document 11 Filed 08/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3