Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01249/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01249-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS E. BUSKIRK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

& REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01249-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY 

BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

(Docs. 1 and 7)

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

Plaintiff Nicholas E. Buskirk, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 8, 2014. On March 16, 2015, 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under section 1983 and 

ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e). More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise 

responded to the Court’s order.1 As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any 

claims upon which relief may be granted. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action is 

HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted under section 1983. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision 

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 On April 6, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope 

indicated that Plaintiff was discharged from prison. However, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any change in his 

address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).

Case 1:14-cv-01249-AWI-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 1