Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02150/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02150-1/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-2150-LAB-WVG

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

JOSEPH L. WILLIAMS,

CDCR #G-17552,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. POLLARD; J. CARIMAN;

SGT. R. MARIENTES; ONE 

UNKNOWN SERGEANT; SGT. 

GODINEZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-2150-LAB-WVG

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

Joseph L. Williams (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”), and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 7, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural History

On December 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 7.)

Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to 

file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 4-11.) Plaintiff was also cautioned, 

Case 3:19-cv-02150-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-2150-LAB-WVG

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

however, that if he failed to file an Amended Complaint that cured his pleading defects, 

the Court would dismiss 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.”)).

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before February 6, 2020. But to date, 

Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested 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)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s December 20, 2019 Order.

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: March 2, 2020 __________________________________

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02150-LAB-WVG Document 8 Filed 03/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2