Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02497/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02497-1/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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

i::-11 ,-·o 1 .i - • • IC ... ,, L._ 

17 AUG - I PM 3: 24 

&Y: '4)5 !)EP!J7 \ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT SIMBA MAKONI, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMANDER EDWIN SCHROEDER, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL 

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 ORDERS 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT 

19 ROBERT SIMBA MAKONI ("Plaintiff'), proceeding prose, and while detained 

20 at the Vista Detention Facility ("VDF") in Vista, California, filed a civil rights Complaint 

21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in October 2016 (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff claimed that while 

22 he was in their custody, VDF officials failed to address his medical needs, threatened him 

23 when he complained, and segregated him based on race. (Id. at 7-14.) 

24 I. 

25 

Procedural Background 

On December 19, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs motions seeking injunctive 

26 relief, appointment of counsel, and his initial request to proceed in forma pauperis 

27 ("IFP"), but granted him leave to either prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 

28 § 1914(a), or file a renewed, properly supported IFP Motion (ECF No. 6). 

3:16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL 

Case 3:16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL Document 12 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 Plaintiff filed a renewed IFP Motion (ECF No. 7), and on February 28, 2017, the 

2 Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for 

3 failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

4 § 1915(e)(2) and§ 1915A(b) (ECF No. 8). 

5 In its February 28, 2017 Order, the Court informed Plaintiff of his various pleading 

6 deficiencies, and granted him 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint in 

7 order to fix them. Id. at 4-13; Lucas v. Dep 't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) 

8 (per curiam) (unless it is clear the deficiencies in a complaint cannot be cured, prose 

9 litigants are generally entitled to notice of their pleading deficiencies and an opportunity 

10 to amend prior to the dismissal of an action); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

11 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en bane). 

12 After the deadline for amendment elapsed, Plaintiff requested an extension of time 

13 in which to amend (ECF No. 10). On May 5, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs request, 

14 and directed him to amend no later than May 26, 2017. See ECFNo. 11at1-2. 

15 Five months have passed since the Court first dismissed Plaintiffs Complaint, and 

16 two more have passed since Plaintiffs extension of time expired. But he has yet to file an 

17 Amended Complaint, or to request another extension of time in which to do so. 

18 "If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a 

19 district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire 

20 action." Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). "The failure of the plaintiff 

21 eventually to respond to the court's ultimatum-either by amending the complaint or by 

22 indicating to the court that [he] will not do so-is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 

23 41(b) dismissal." Edwards v. Marin Park, 356F.3d1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 

24 II. Conclusion and Order 

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

26 leave to amend based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can 

27 be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and§ 1915A(b), and his failure to 

28 /// 

2 

3: 16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL 

Case 3:16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL Document 12 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 prosecute pursuant to FED. R. C1v. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court's February 28, 

2 2017 and May 5, 2017 Orders (ECF Nos. 8, 11). 

3 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 

4 faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 

5 judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 

9 

8 Dored,?; ~'?- 10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ITEZ 

United States District Judge 

3 

3: 16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL 

Case 3:16-cv-02497-BEN-PCL Document 12 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3