Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00561/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00561-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331bv Fed. Question: Bivens-Prisoner

---

1 

3:18-cv-00561-MMA-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 

ROBERT HATCHER, 

Booking #17182375, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

Dr. BLAKE, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No. 3:18-cv-00561-MMA-MDD 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b) 

AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT 

ROBERT HATCHER (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego Central Jail 

(“SDCJ”) and proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971), on March 16, 2018. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. 

Plaintiff claimed a SDCJ doctor, unidentified medical staff, and “about 5” unnamed 

nurses denied him medical care, but his pleading contained no factual allegations 

whatsoever. Id. at 1, 4, 5. Instead, Plaintiff merely attached dozens of SDCJ Sick Call 

Request and Inmate/Grievance Appeal Forms, copies of San Diego Superior Court 

Misdemeanor–Judgment Minutes in Criminal Case No. CN381450, and what appeared to 

be an undated pleading submitted to the Superior Court Judge presiding over that case, 

Case 3:18-cv-00561-MMA-MDD Document 10 Filed 07/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:18-cv-00561-MMA-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

requesting that the Judge hold the medical staff at SDCJ in contempt for bias and prejudice 

against him as a Blackfoot Indian. Id. at 8-49. 

I. Procedural History 

 On May 17, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave 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 Doc. No. 8. Plaintiff was notified of his pleading 

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

he could. Id. at 5-9. Plaintiff was further cautioned his failure to amend would result in the 

dismissal of his case. Id. at 9 (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.”)). 

Two months have passed since the Court’s May 17, 2018 Order, and Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint was due on or before July 2, 2018. But to date, Plaintiff has failed to 

file 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). 

/// 

/// 

                                               

1 In fact, it appears Plaintiff has been released or transferred from SDCJ custody because 

the Court’s May 17, 2018 Order has been returned by the U.S. Post Office as undeliverable. 

See Doc. No. 9. “A party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties 

advised as to current address.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff 

at his last designated address is returned by the Post Office, and no notice of change of 

address be submitted within 60 days, “the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 

for failure to prosecute.” Id.; see also https://apps.sdsheriff.net/ wij/ Wij AList. 

aspx?LastName=Hatcher&FirstName=Robert (last visited July 16, 2018) (noting that 

“[t]he person you are searching for is not in our custody!”). 

Case 3:18-cv-00561-MMA-MDD Document 10 Filed 07/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:18-cv-00561-MMA-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

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 § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s May 17, 2018 Order 

requiring amendment (Doc. No. 8). 

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 case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: July 17, 2018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00561-MMA-MDD Document 10 Filed 07/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3