Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02556/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02556-2/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

3:18-cv-02556-CAB-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

RENATO TREJO MUNOZ,

Booking No. 097904694,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOLTVILLE SHERIFF DEP'T; 

IMPERIAL SHERIFF'S DETENTION 

OFFICE; TWO UNKNOWN SHERIFFS,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-02556-CAB-MDD

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING 

TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND FOR 

FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 

ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Renato Trejo Munoz (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Otay Mesa Detention Center 

located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 5, 2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

I. Procedural History

On December 4, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim and for 

failing to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8. See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was 

informed of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 30 days leave in which to file an 

Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. 

Case 3:18-cv-02556-CAB-MDD Document 7 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-02556-CAB-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

But to date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not asked for an extension of 

time in which to do so. “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), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s December 4, 2018 Order (ECF No. 

4).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02556-CAB-MDD Document 7 Filed 01/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2