Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01429-8/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

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

ROBERTO HERRERA, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

GILL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG-PC

 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

ORDER THAT THIS DISMISSAL IS 

SUBJECT TO THE “THREE-STRIKES”

PROVISION SET FORTH IN 28 U.S.C. '

1915(g).

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Roberto Herrera (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 

On January 17, 2014, the Court dismissed the initial Complaint for failure to state a 

claim, with leave to amend. See Doc. No. 11. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First 

Amended Complaint. See Doc. No. 17. 

On March 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened the First Amended Complaint and 

entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim. See Doc. No. 25. On May 7, 2015, the District Judge adopted the findings and 

recommendations in part, dismissing Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim against defendant Ballesteros for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, and 

dismissing all remaining claims, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. See Doc. No. 27. 

Plaintiff was granted forty-five days in which to file a Second Amended Complaint and was 

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

expressly warned that a failure to file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal and 

closure of this case. Id.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint. During the past ten 

months, Plaintiff has filed six motions for extension of time to file the Second Amended 

Complaint, which were all granted by the Court. See Doc. No. 28, 30, 32, 34, 39, 41. 

Plaintiff’s latest deadline to file the Second Amended Complaint was March 29, 2016. See

Doc. No. 42. More than three weeks have passed since the deadline expired, and Plaintiff has 

not filed a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order granting 

the extension of time. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon 

which relief may be granted. In accordance with the Court’s warning in the May 6, 2015 order, 

the Court will close this case. See Doc. No. 27.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this case is 

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

which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '

1915(g), Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01429-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2