Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01832/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01832-2/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-01832-MMA-WVG 

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 

ALMALIK RASUWL, 

CDCR #BK-0601, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MARK HAYS; FRANK CLAMSER; 

APRIL SIPPERLEY; JUSTIN WHITE, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:19-cv-01832-MMA-WVG 

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 Almalik Rasuwl, currently housed at Valley State Prison located in 

Chowchilla, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. 

I. Procedural History 

 On October 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff 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 Doc. No. 6. 

Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to 

file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. at 6-10. 

Case 3:19-cv-01832-MMA-WVG Document 8 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

3:19-cv-01832-MMA-WVG 

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

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before December 16, 2019 and 

nearly three months have passed since the Court issued its October 29, 2019 Order. But 

to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not 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)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to 

prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s October 29, 

2019 Order. 

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. 

DATE: January 24, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01832-MMA-WVG Document 8 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2