Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02979/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02979-1/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

3:16-cv-02979-LAB-JLB

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

CESAR RIVERA,

Inmate #16152631,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMURILSH MURILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02979-LAB-JLB

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

CESAR RIVERA (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and while detained and/or 

serving his sentence in local custody at the San Diego County Sheriff Department’s East 

Mesa Reentry Facility (“EMRF”), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged several EMRF officials placed him and 29 

other inmates on lockdown for more than a month, denied them showers for 96 hours, 

and refused to provide them with stationary and “hygiene packs” in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 

I. Procedural History

On April 20, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

Case 3:16-cv-02979-LAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 07/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-02979-LAB-JLB

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 6. 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 5-7. Plaintiff was further cautioned that his 

failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 8, 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 three months have passed since the Court’s April 20, 2017 Order. But 

Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, nor has he 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 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 April 20, 2017 

Order (ECF No. 6).

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: July 24, 2017

_____________________________________

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02979-LAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 07/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2