Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00794/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00794-2/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

3:17-CV-0794-JLS-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

DAVID EARL PARMER,

16125004

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-CV-0794-JLS-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

I. Procedural History

David Earl Parmer (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated at George Bailey Detention Facility 

located in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 May 24, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, conducted its 

mandatory initial screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and dismissed it sua sponte for failing 

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), (ECF No. 3). The 

Court also granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that 

Case 3:17-cv-00794-JLS-WVG Document 16 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-CV-0794-JLS-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

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 July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 

4.) The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), (ECF No. 7). 

On November 16, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time and gave 

him until December 16, 2017 to file an Amended Complaint in compliance with the Court’s 

August 30, 2017 Order, (ECF No. 14).

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

despite having been granted an extension of time 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) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to FED.

R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 30, 2017 and November 16, 2017

Orders. (See ECF Nos. 7, 14.)

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00794-JLS-WVG Document 16 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-CV-0794-JLS-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

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: January 12, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00794-JLS-WVG Document 16 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3