Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02313/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02313-0/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

3:16-cv-02313-CAB-KSC

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

BENJAMIN SPENCER,

Booking #16143756,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF VISTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02313-CAB-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND

§ 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

BENJAMIN SPENCER (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and while detained at the 

San Diego Sheriff’s Department Vista Detention Facility (“VDF”), filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 6, 2016, alleging excessive force at the 

time of his arrest, and negligence on the part of unidentified VDF staff when he was later 

attacked by a fellow detainee. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)

I. Procedural Background

On December 9, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff 

was informed of his pleading deficiencies, and granted leave to amend them. (Id. at 5-9.)

Case 3:16-cv-02313-CAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 06/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:16-cv-02313-CAB-KSC

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

On January 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4), 

followed a week later by a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 6). On February 10, 2017, 

the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion, and sua sponte dismissed his First Amended 

Complaint, again because it failed to state a claim (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was once more 

apprised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint within 45 days. (Id. at 9-10.)

Almost four months have passed since the Court’s February 10, 2017 Order. Plaintiff 

has not filed a Second Amended Complaint; nor has he requested an extension of time in 

which to do so. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff 

does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert 

the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”); Edwards v. Marin 

Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“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.”).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further 

leave to amend 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 February 10, 

2017 Order (ECF No. 7).

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 to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02313-CAB-KSC Document 8 Filed 06/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2