Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01831-1/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-01831-AJB-MDD

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

MARIO Q. JONES,

Booking #19750426,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MOTEL 6: D’ANGELO’S TOWING; 

DAISEY BALBUERA, Motel 6 Clerk; 

OFFICER JOHN McGOUGH, National 

City Police,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND

§ 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Plaintiff Mario Q. Jones, while detained at the San Diego County Jail in San Diego, 

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

(“Compl.”) on September 23, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

While the factual and legal basis for his claims was not clear, Jones’s Complaint

sought the recovery of a $100 deposit he made to the Motel 6 clerk in National City on July 

12, 2019, and $510,000 in general and punitive damages from a private towing company 

and the National City Police Officer who arrested him for trespassing. See id. at 3‒4, 6‒7, 

10. 

Case 3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD

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

I. Procedural History

On December 9, 2019, the Court granted Jones’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 3. Jones was notified of his pleading 

deficiencies and granted 45 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them, if 

he could. Id. at 5-10. Jones was also warned his failure to amend would result in the 

dismissal of his case. Id. at 10 (citing 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.”)).

Jones’s Amended Complaint was due on or before January 23, 2020. More than a

month has elapsed since that time, but to date, Jones has failed to amend, 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 Jones’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 as required by

Court’s December 9, 2019 Order requiring amendment. See also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. 

(“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address 

 

1

In fact, the Court’s December 9, 2019 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post 

Office on December 23, 2019. See ECF No. 4. The Court has since confirmed Jones is no 

longer in the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, see https://apps. 

sdsheriff.net/wij/WijList.aspx?LastName=Jones&FirstName=Mario (last accessed Feb. 

24, 2020), and he has filed nothing since submitting his original Complaint and IFP Motion 

in September 2019. The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[a] party proceeding pro 

se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current address.” See S.D. Cal. 

CivLR 83.11.b.

Case 3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD

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

is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court ... within 60 

days thereafter of [his] current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice 

for failure to prosecute.”).

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: February 24, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD Document 5 Filed 02/25/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3