Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00889/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00889-3/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

3:17-cv-0889-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

SEDRIC EUGENE JOHNSON,

AZ-2648

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-0889-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

I. Procedural History

Sedric Eugene Johnson (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se in this civil action, filed 

a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) At the time he filed 

his Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the $400 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 

On September 12, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, denied 

his request for counsel, and conducted its mandatory initial screening of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. (ECF No. 14 at 7-8.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint sua sponte 

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 20 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-0889-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

for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) (Id.). The 

Court granted Plaintiff forty five (45) days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint 

that addressed the deficiencies of pleading it identified. (Id.). See also Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court should grant leave 

to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that 

the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted).

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF 

No. 18.) Once again, the Court found that Plaintiff’s FAC failed to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted and dismissed the entire action with thirty (30) days leave 

to file an amended pleading. (ECF No. 19 at 6-7.)

That time has since passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint. 

“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 November 28, 

2017 Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the 

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2018 ______________________________________

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00889-LAB-JLB Document 20 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2