Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00492/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00492-2/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-00492-CAB-KSC

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, also known as 

ROBERT L. JACKSON,

Booking No. 17182375,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASEY MONAHAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC

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

Robert Hatcher (“Plaintiff”), while housed at San Diego Central Jail, and proceeding 

pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 6, 2018. See

Compl., ECF No. 1. 

I. Procedural History

On April 5, 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. 12. Plaintiff was informed of his pleading 

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

them. Id. at 4-6.

Case 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC Document 17 Filed 06/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC

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

More than two months have passed since the Court’s April 5, 2018 Order, and 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before May 22, 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 April 5, 2018 Order (ECF No. 12).

Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Production of Video Footage” and “Motion for 

Investigator” (ECF Nos. 14, 16) are DENIED as moot.

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and 

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC Document 17 Filed 06/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2