Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00946/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00946-3/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

17-CV-946 JLS (PCL)

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

NEHEMIAH LANARR McINTOSH,

SR., CDCR #AU-3829,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEP’T; PIERSON; WEISHAAR 

JWEISHSH; DANIEL PEARCE; 

McHENRY MmCHENSH; R. 

MARTINEZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-946 JLS (PCL)

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

Nehemiah McIntosh (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the California Institution for Men

located in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (ECF No. 1). 

I. Procedural History

On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

along with a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a Motion to Appoint 

Counsel. (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, denied

his Motion to Appoint Counsel and dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was given forty-five (45) days 

Case 3:17-cv-00946-JLS-PCL Document 12 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-CV-946 JLS (PCL)

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

leave to file an amended pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified 

in the Court’s Order. (Id.)

However, instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Order 

to Provide Plaintiff with a copy of Exhibits.” (ECF No. 8.) On January 25, 2018, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s request for copies and sua sponte granted him an additional forty-five 

(45) days to file his amended pleading. (ECF No. 11.)

That time has since passed and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or about 

March 12, 2018. But to date, Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint. “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 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s September 28, 2017 

and January 25, 2018 Orders, (ECF Nos. 6, 11).

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00946-JLS-PCL Document 12 Filed 05/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2