Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02789/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02789-1/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

3:15-cv-2789-WQH-KSC

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

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON,

CDCR #AZ-2648,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-2789-WQH-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND 

§ 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Centinela 

State Prison in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, first initiated this civil action 

in December 2015, when he filed a pleading from George Bailey Detention Facility on 

San Diego Sheriff’s Department stationary containing allegations of excessive force and 

interference with his mail by unidentified San Diego County Sheriff’s Department 

officials (Doc. No. 1). 

I. Procedural History

On February 1, 2016, and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court liberally 

construed his pleading as an attempt to file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. See Doc. No. 8 at 2. Because Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required 

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 4
2

3:15-cv-2789-WQH-KSC

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

by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), however, the Court dismissed the case. See id. at 5. In addition, the 

Court also found Plaintiff’s pleading failed to comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 3, 8(a)(1)-(3) 

and 12(h)(3), but granted him 45 days leave in which to re-open his case by either paying 

the filing fee or filing an IFP motion and filing a First Amended Complaint that 

contained factual matter sufficient to show that “each Government-official defendant he 

wishe[d] to sue, ‘through the official’s own individual actions, ha[d] violated the 

Constitution.’” Id. at 2-4 (emphasis added) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 

(2009)). 

After he was granted two generous extension of time (Doc Nos. 11, 14), Plaintiff 

filed a Motion to Proceed to Proceed IFP and a First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 15, 

16), followed by several letters and miscellaneous documents which the Court directed 

the Clerk to file despite Local Rule 83.9, which prohibits ex parte communications with 

the Court (Doc. Nos. 17-20).

On July 26, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but sua sponte 

dismissed his First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) (Doc. No. 21).

The Court provided Plaintiff with a clear and detailed explanation of all his pleading 

deficiencies, and granted him “one more chance” to fix them. (See Doc. No. 21 at 6-11.)

Plaintiff had 45 days, or until approximately September 9, 2016, to file his Second

Amended Complaint, and he was warned if he failed to do so, his case would be 

dismissed without further leave to amend. (Id. at 12, 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.”)).

Plaintiff has since continued to write letters in violation of Local Rule 83.9 (Doc. 

Nos. 23, 25, 27), which the Court has filed and considered despite having previously 

warned Plaintiff that they might be rejected or stricken. See Doc. No. 21 at 2 n.1 (citing 

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 4
3

3:15-cv-2789-WQH-KSC

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

S.D. CAL. CIVLR 83.1.) Plaintiff’s letters are barely legible and they make reference to 

“judicial standards,” the “California Rules of Professional Conduct,” and the “Citizen’s 

Law Enforcement Review Board,” but none of them mention any previously named 

Defendant, or include any factual allegations to plausibly suggest Plaintiff filed them in 

an effort to serve an as amended pleading in compliance with the Court’s July 26, 2016 

Order. See Doc. Nos. 23, 25, 27. 

Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s letters to be his Second Amended 

Complaint, they simply fail to contain any “short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief” as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). See 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. And while the Court “ha[]s an obligation where the petitioner 

is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford 

the petitioner the benefit of any doubt,” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not 

“supply essential elements of claims” that have not been pled. Ivey v. Board of Regents of 

the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Therefore, the Court finds that because Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to 

either file a Second Amended Complaint, or request an extension of time in which to do 

so, but has failed to do either, his case must now be dismissed. See Edwards v. Marin 

Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“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 it will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 

dismissal.”).

II. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety

without further leave to amend 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 July 26, 2016 Order. 

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/28/16 Page 3 of 4
4

3:15-cv-2789-WQH-KSC

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 of Court to enter a 

final judgment of dismissal and to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02789-WQH-KSC Document 28 Filed 10/28/16 Page 4 of 4