Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01156/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01156-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-1156-GPC-RBM

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

TOMMIE LEE BAKER,

CDCR #7-30691,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROGER ITO, Judge; S. HARDEN, 

Account Officer Specialist; B. 

SULLIVAN, Appeal Examiner; 

SECRETARY OF CDCR,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-1156-GPC-RBM

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING 

TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR 

SEEKING MONETARY RELIEF 

AGAINST IMMUNE DEFENDANT 

PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND

§ 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING TO 

PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Tommie Lee Baker III (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 19, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

I. Procedural History

On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but 

dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim and for seeking monetary damages 

against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See

ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was informed of his pleading deficiencies and granted 30 days leave 

Case 3:19-cv-01156-GPC-RBM Document 5 Filed 09/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-1156-GPC-RBM

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

in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. at 10-11.

That time has since passed, but to date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not 

asked for 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 and for 

seeking monetary damages against immune defendants 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 July 15, 2019 Order (ECF No. 4).

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: September 25, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01156-GPC-RBM Document 5 Filed 09/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2