Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01800/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01800-1/pdf.json

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

---

13

3:19-cv-01800-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

MARLO Q. JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CHIEF DAVID LISLEIT, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01800-MMA-WVG

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION

Plaintiff Marlo Q. Jones, while housed at the San Diego County Jail, and 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on 

September 18, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1.

I. Procedural History

On October 8, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), 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. 5. 

Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted thirty (30) days leave in 

which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. See id. at 5-8. Plaintiff was also 

cautioned, however, that if he failed to file an Amended Complaint that cured his 

pleading defects, the Court would dismiss his case. See id. at 8 (citing Lira v. Herrera, 

427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the 

Case 3:19-cv-01800-MMA-WVG Document 7 Filed 04/01/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
13

3:19-cv-01800-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

opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 

complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before November 8, 2019. 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 amended 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 8, 

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. 

DATED: April 1, 2020 

 

Case 3:19-cv-01800-MMA-WVG Document 7 Filed 04/01/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2