Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01707/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01707-1/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

 

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

MIGUEL SANCHEZ,

CDCR #AC‒8280,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WEBSTER, Correctional Officer; 

GROUD, Correctional Officer; 

C. AYALA, Correctional Officer; 

J. GARCIA, Correctional Officer;

Sgt. DURAN,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01707-BAS-JLB

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND

§ 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff Miguel Sanchez, while incarcerated at Richard J. 

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

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See “Compl.,” ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claimed

several correctional officials entered his cell on August 28, 2019, August 31, 2019, and 

September 1, 2019, “trashed” his personal property and “stole” or “destroy[ed] [his] 

confidential court legal mail” in retaliation for a CDCR 602 inmate appeal he filed in 

December 2018. (Id. at 1‒5.)

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01707-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

I. Procedural History

On November 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state claim pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was notified of his 

pleading deficiencies and was ordered to file an Amended Complaint on or before January 

6, 2020. (Id. at 5‒11.) Plaintiff was also warned that failure to amend would result in the 

dismissal of his case. (Id. at 11); see 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 did not file an Amended Complaint by January 6, 2020, nor has he filed a

request for an extension of time. “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’sfailure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute as required by

Court’s November 22, 2019 Order requiring amendment. 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: January 22, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01707-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2