Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02245/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02245-3/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

3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM

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

JEFFERY LEE MOURNING,

Inmate Booking No. 1814430,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLIAM GORE; SECURUS 

TELEPHONE CO.; JOHN & JANE 

DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint filed by 

Defendant William Gore. ECF No. 17.

I. Procedural History

On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff Jeffery Lee Mourning, while formerly housed at 

the George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) located in San Diego, California, and 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., 

ECF No. 1. On January 3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) and directed the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to effect 

Case 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM

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

service of the Complaint on the named Defendants. See ECF No. 3. On February 13, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed a “Motion Pursuant to Amend.” ECF No. 8. On February 20, 2019, United 

States Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro construed this as a motion seeking 

leave to file an amended pleading and issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending Plaintiff’s Motion be granted. See ECF No. 12 at 12. On April 25, 2019, 

this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Montenegro’s Report and Recommendation and 

informed Plaintiff that he “shall file an amended complaint, complete in itself without 

reference to the superseded pleading, within thirty days of the entry of this Order.” ECF 

No. 14 at 2. 

To date, Plaintiff has failed to amend and has not asked for an extension of time in 

which to do so. On August 5, 2019, Defendant William Gore filed a Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 17. 

II. Defendant’s Motion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states, in part, that if a plaintiff “fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 

the action or any claim against it.” The Ninth Circuit has held that where a “plaintiff has 

not filed an amended complaint after being given leave to do so and has not notified the 

court of his intention not to file an amended complaint,” the Court may “deem the dismissal 

to be for failure to comply with a court order” pursuant to Rule 41(b). Harris v. Mangum, 

863 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017). 

In this case, Plaintiff had thirty (30) days from the date the Court filed the April 25, 

2019, Order to file his amended pleading. Plaintiff has not filed anything with this Court 

since February 13, 2019. See ECF No. 10. On September 20, 2019, the Court’s briefing 

schedule was returned to the Court “undeliverable” with the notation “out of custody.” 

ECF No. 19. “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).

Case 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM

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

III. Conclusion and Order

Defendant Gore’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. This civil action is 

DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s April 25, 

2019, Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02245-WQH-RBM Document 20 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3