Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02486/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02486-2/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

3:19-cv-2486-CAB-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

MARVIN D. GILLIAM,

Booking No. 19751724,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM 

D. GORE; CAPTAIN BUCHANAN,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-2486-CAB-BLM

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

Marvin D. Gilliam (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the George Bailey Detention 

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

on December 26, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural History

On February 25, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

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 ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff 

was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted 30 days leave in which to file an 

Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 9-10.)

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-02486-CAB-BLM Document 6 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-2486-CAB-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

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before March 25, 2020. But to date, 

Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time

in which to do so.

1

“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)(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 25, 2020 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: May 5, 2020

 

1 The Court’s February 25, 2020 Order was returned “undeliverable.” (ECF No. 5.) It was noted on the 

envelope that Plaintiff apparently was released. (See id.) However, to date, Plaintiff has not contacted 

the Court nor has he provided a notice of change of address.

Case 3:19-cv-02486-CAB-BLM Document 6 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2