Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01801/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01801-1/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 

3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG 

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 

MIGUEL ANGEL LIRA, 

Booking #19737821, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CODY HORN; BRIAN OLSON; 

UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT; 

HANE SADAF, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND 

§ 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER 

REQUIRING AMENDMENT 

Plaintiff Miguel Angel Lira, while detained at the San Diego Sheriff Department’s 

George F. Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding 

pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Compl.”) on September 

18, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. 

While the factual and legal basis for his claims was not clear, Lira’s Complaint 

appeared to challenge the constitutional validity of his arrest, ongoing criminal case, the 

deprivation of his property, and the adequacy of his public defender’s representation. See 

id. at 2‒11. He sought $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 13. 

Case 3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG Document 5 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG 

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 December 2, 2019, the Court granted Lira’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. Lira was notified of his pleading 

deficiencies, and granted 30 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them, if 

he could. Id. at 6-10. Lira was also warned his failure to amend would result in the dismissal 

of his case. Id. at 13 (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.”)). 

Lira’s Amended Complaint was due on or before January 2, 2020. More than a 

month has elapsed since that time, but to date, Lira has failed to amend, 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 Lira’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 as required by 

Court’s December 2, 2019 Order requiring amendment. See also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. 

(“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address 

                                               

1 In fact, the Court’s December 2, 2019 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post 

Office on December 18, 2019, with a notation that Lira is no longer housed at GBDF. See

Doc. No. 4. The Court has confirmed Lira is no longer is the custody of the San Diego 

County Sheriff’s Department, see https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/WijList.aspx?LastName 

=Lira&FirstName=Miguel (last accessed Feb. 19, 2020), and he has filed nothing since 

submitting his original Complaint and IFP Motion in September 2019. The Local Rules of 

this Court provide that “[a] party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing 

parties advised as to current address.” See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. 

Case 3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG Document 5 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG 

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

is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court ... within 60 

days thereafter of [his] current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice 

for failure to prosecute.”). 

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. 

DATE: February 20, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG Document 5 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3