Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01889/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01889-1/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

3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS

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

MICHAEL R. CUNNINGHAM,

Booking #18112771,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Dr. TRAN; ARNOLD FAJAYAN; 

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPT.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS

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

Michael R. Cunningham (“Plaintiff”), while incarcerated at the San Diego County 

Sheriff Department’s George Bailey Detention Facility in San Diego, California, and 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on August 

13, 2018. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claimed the Sheriff Department’s “Medical 

Services Division,” a medical supervisor, and a doctor at the Sheriff Department’s Vista 

Detention Facility violated his Eighth Amendment rights to adequate medical care in 

June and July 2018. (Id. at 1-5.)

I. Procedural History

On November 1, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief 

Case 3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS Document 5 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS

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

could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 

3.) Plaintiff was informed of his various pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave 

in which to file an amended complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 6-12.) Plaintiff was further 

cautioned his failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 13, 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.”)).

More than two months have passed since the Court’s November 1, 2018 Order, and 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due on or before December 17, 2018.

1 But to date, 

Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, and has not requested an extension of 

time in which to do so.

2

“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).

///

 

1 Because the 45 day period for amendment elapsed on December 15, 2018, which fell on 

a Saturday, Plaintiff had until Monday, December 17, 2018, to comply with the Court’s 

November 1, 2018 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

2

In fact, the Court’s November 1, 2018 Order was returned as undeliverable by the U.S. 

Post Office on November 13, 2018 (ECF No. 4), and Plaintiff has filed nothing since. It 

appears he is no longer in the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. See

https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/WijAList.aspx?LastName=Cunningham&FirstName=Micha

el (last visited Jan. 15, 2019). The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[a] party 

proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current address. 

If mail addressed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address 

is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing 

parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff’s current address, the court may dismiss 

the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. Those 60 

days elapsed on January 14, 2019, since January 13, 2019 fell on a Sunday. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

Case 3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS Document 5 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS

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

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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s November 1,

2018 Order (ECF No. 3).

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 28, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01889-WQH-AGS Document 5 Filed 01/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3