Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01373/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01373-1/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 

3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM 

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

DONALD KORRIE KNIGHT,

CDCR #AY-7867, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

JOHN & JANE DOES, Counselor & 

Correc. Officers, Records, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM 

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

Plaintiff Donald Korrie Knight, while incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Knight sought 

to hold several unidentified RJD correctional officials liable for damages based on his 

delayed release date. (Id. at 3.)

I. Procedural History

On October 9, 2019, the Court granted Knight leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be 

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 5.) Knight 

was informed of his various pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to 

Case 3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM Document 7 Filed 12/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM 

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

file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 4‒8.) Knight was also warned his 

failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 8‒9, 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.”)). 

Almost two full months have passed since the Court’s October 9, 2019 Order, and 

Knight’s Amended Complaint was due on or before November 25, 2019.1 But to date, 

Knight 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).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without

prejudice based on Knight’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 October 9, 

2019 Order (ECF No. 5). 

///

1 Because the 45 day period for amendment elapsed on November 23, 2019, which fell on 

a Saturday, Knight had until Monday, November 25, 2019, to comply with the Court’s 

October 9, 2019 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). 

2 In fact, the Court’s October 9, 2019 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post 

Office on October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 6), and Knight has filed nothing since. It appears he 

is no longer in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Results.aspx (last visited Dec. 2, 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.” See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. 

Case 3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM Document 7 Filed 12/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM 

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

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: December 5, 2019 ______________________________________

Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01373-LAB-RBM Document 7 Filed 12/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3