Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00243/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00243-2/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-00243-JLS-JLB

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

KEVIN HAGAN,

CDCR #AM-6145,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RYAN BARENCHI, Doctor CMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00243-JLS-JLB

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

Plaintiff Kevin Hagan, incarcerated Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San 

Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

I. Procedural History

At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not prepay the $400 filing fee 

mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF Nos. 1, 2). 

On March 29, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, conducted its 

mandatory initial screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and dismissed it sua sponte for failing 

to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 4). 

Case 3:18-cv-00243-JLS-JLB Document 8 Filed 06/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-00243-JLS-JLB

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

The Court also granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that 

addressed the deficiencies identified. (Id. at 5–10); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if 

no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could 

not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted)).

Several days before his Amended Complaint was due, Plaintiff filed an ex parte 

Motion requesting an extension of time in which to comply with the Court’s March 29, 

2018 Order, and a “courtesy copy” of his original Complaint. (See ECF No. 6 at 1–2). On 

May 10, 2018, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a 

complimentary copy of his original Complaint, as well as a blank copy of the Court’s form 

Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for his use and convenience in 

amending, and granted his request for an extension of time. Plaintiff was given until June 

18, 2018, to file his Amended Complaint, and reminded that his failure to do so would 

result in the dismissal of his case. (See ECF No. 7 at 3–4).

Almost three months have passed since the Court’s March 29, 2018 Order, and more 

than a week has gone by since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due. Plaintiff has failed 

to amend and has not requested a second 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 § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2018, and May 

10, 2018 Orders (See ECF Nos. 4, 7).

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00243-JLS-JLB Document 8 Filed 06/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-00243-JLS-JLB

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

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: June 29, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00243-JLS-JLB Document 8 Filed 06/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3