Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01449/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01449-3/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-01449-CAB-NLS

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

EVERETT LUTHER,

Booking #19723372,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION; SAN DIEGO 

COUNTY; SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEP’T; SHERIFF 

WILLIAM GORE,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01449-CAB-NLS

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) AND

FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE 

IN COMPLIANCE WITH 

COURT ORDER 

Plaintiff Everett Luther, formerly incarcerated at the East Mesa Reentry Facility in 

San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, first filed this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California on July 29, 2019. See “Compl.,” ECF 

No. 1 at 1.

I. Procedural History

Because Luther alleged the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 

the County of San Diego, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, and its Sheriff, 

William Gore, denied him earned conduct credits, and forced him to “serv[e] a longer 

Case 3:19-cv-01449-CAB-NLS Document 11 Filed 03/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-01449-CAB-NLS

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

sentence in county jail” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, id. at 2‒6, his case was 

transferred here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See ECF No. 4. On January 6, 2020, after 

he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and a Notice of Change of Address 

indicating he was no longer incarcerated, see ECF No. 9, the Court granted Luther leave to 

proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state claim pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See ECF No. 10. Luther was notified of his pleading 

deficiencies, and was ordered to file an Amended Complaint within 45 days. Id. at 3‒11.

He was also warned his failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 11, 

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.”).

Luther has not file an Amended Complaint, nearly two months have passed since the 

Court issued its January 6, 2020 Order, and he has filed no request for an extension of time.

“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 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 as required by the Court’s January 6,

2020 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 3:19-cv-01449-CAB-NLS Document 11 Filed 03/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-01449-CAB-NLS

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

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.

Dated: March 4, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01449-CAB-NLS Document 11 Filed 03/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3