Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01197/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01197-1/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-01197-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 

KETEMA L. ROSS, 

Patient #068942-2, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT; ALL (UNKNOWN) 

INVOLVED OFFICERS, 

Defendants.

 Case No. 3:18-cv-01197-MMA-MDD 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE 

A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND FOR 

FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 

ORDER REQUIRING 

AMENDMENT 

Plaintiff Ketema L. Ross, while committed to Atascadero State Hospital (“ASH”) 

and proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

seeking damages against the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (“SDCSD”) and 

several unknown SDCSD officers. See Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 1-2. 

Plaintiff, who suffers from bi-polar disorder, claimed the SDCSD and several 

unidentified deputies violated his Fourth Amendment rights during his November 26, 2016 

arrest. Plaintiff admitted he was un-medicated, disoriented, inadequately clothed, and 

seeking shelter at the Mall of the Americas near the U.S.-Mexico border at the time. Id. at 

2-3. He sought $10,000 in both general and punitive damages, and requested an injunction 

enjoining harassment and further injury. Id. at 5. 

Case 3:18-cv-01197-MMA-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:18-cv-01197-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

I. Procedural History 

 On August 23, 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)(B)(ii). See Doc. No. 3. 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 5-11. Plaintiff was further cautioned 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.”)). 

More than two months have passed since the Court issued its August 23, 2018 Order, 

and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before October 9, 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). 

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)(ii), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to 

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 23, 2018 Order. 

                                               

1 In fact, it appears Plaintiff has been released from ASH because the Court’s August 23, 

2018 Order was returned by the U.S. Post Office as undeliverable on August 29, 2018. See

Doc. No. 4. “A party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised 

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

at his last designated address be 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.

Case 3:18-cv-01197-MMA-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:18-cv-01197-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

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 to close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: October 30, 3018 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01197-MMA-MDD Document 5 Filed 10/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3