Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00624/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00624-2/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-00624-JLS-BGS

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

EDWIN E. CHAVEZ,

CDCR #K-49549

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR; J. CLARK; CALIFORNIA 

CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE 

SERVICES; SCOTT KERNAN; 

P. JAYASUNDARA; S. ROBERT; 

M. GLYNN; WARDEN DANIEL 

PARAMO; KATHLEEN ALLISON;

D. STRAYHORN; S. GATES; DOES 1 

TO 50,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-00624-JLS-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

I. Procedural History

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

See ECF No. 1. On June 17, 2019, the Court conducted the required sua sponte screening 

of Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. See ECF 

No. 3. Plaintiff was granted 45 days leave to file an amended complaint in order to correct 

the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. 

Case 3:19-cv-00624-JLS-BGS Document 9 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-00624-JLS-BGS

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 August 13, 2019, and again on August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed requests seeking 

an extension of time to comply with the Court’s June 17, 2019 Order. See ECF Nos. 5, 7. 

Specifically, Plaintiff sought an additional forty-five days to file his amended pleading. 

See ECF No. 7 at 2. On September 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request and 

provided him an additional 60 days to comply with the Court’s June 17, 2019 Order. See

ECF No. 8 at 2. Plaintiff was also cautioned, however, that if he failed to file an Amended 

Complaint that cured his pleading defects, the Court would dismiss his case. Id.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before November 24, 2019, but to 

date, Plaintiff has not filed 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).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this civil action in 

its entirety 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s 

May 7, 2019 Order. 

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 9, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00624-JLS-BGS Document 9 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2