Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00065/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00065-1/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 

3:18-cv-00065-LAB-BLM 

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 

HAMZA SHARIF, 

CDCR #AD-9470, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

Dr. G. CASIAN, MD, 

Defendant.

 Case No. 3:18-cv-00065-LAB-BLM 

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 

HAMZA SHARIF (“Plaintiff”), while incarcerated at California Men’s Facility in 

San Luis Obispo, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 8, 2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff claimed Defendant Casian, a doctor at Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights by failing to effectively treat a recurring skin rash, diagnosed by Casian 

as tinea versicolor, while he was incarcerated at RJD from 2012 through 2014. Id. at 1-3. 

Plaintiff sought both injunctive relief as well as general and punitive damages. Id. at 7. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:18-cv-00065-LAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

3:18-cv-00065-LAB-BLM 

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

I. Procedural History 

 On March 13, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was informed of his pleading 

deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed 

them. Id. at 6-11. Plaintiff was further cautioned his failure to amend would result in the 

dismissal of his case. Id. at 12, 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.”) 

Almost two months have passed since the Court’s March 13, 2018 Order, and 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before April 27, 2018. 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 § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to FED.

R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 13, 2018 Order (ECF No. 6). 

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: ______________________________________ 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00065-LAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2