Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00414/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00414-2/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-0414-WQH-BLM

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

KYLE JAMES,

CDCR #BB-1457,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS 

SERVICE AGENTS, K. LANEY; 

BROWN; JOHN BUCKLEY; JOHN 

DOES; UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA. UNITED STATES 

MARSHALS SERVICE ,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR 

FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 

ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Kyle James (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at Corcoran 

State Prison located in Corcoran, California, initially filed this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural Background

On August 18, 2017, the Court dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 

denied his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 18). The Court 

granted Plaintiff 45 days in which to file an Amended Complaint that cured these 

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

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

pleading deficiencies. (Id. at 7-8; see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc) (noting that leave to amend should be granted when complaint is dismissed sua 

sponte under § 1915 “if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the 

defect.”).)

That time has since passed and Plaintiff has filed no Amended Complaint; nor has 

he requested an extension of time in which to do so. See 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. § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 8, 2017 Order (ECF No. 18).

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00414-WQH-BLM Document 19 Filed 10/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2