Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01553/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01553-1/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

3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB

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

RALPH WYATT,

CDCR #AE-2425,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O J. PINUELAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND

§ 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING 

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 

WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING 

AMENDMENT

RALPH WYATT (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and while incarcerated at the 

California State Prison Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Calipatria State Prison 

Correctional Officer Pinuelas failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate 

while he was incarcerated there in March 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)

I. Procedural Background

On December 13, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) 

(ECF No. 3). Specifically, the Court found Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to 

Case 3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB

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

show he faced a “substantial risk of serious harm” or that Defendant Pinuelas acted with 

“deliberate indifference” to that risk. (Id. at 5, citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

837 (1994); Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010).) The Court also 

granted Plaintiff 45 days in which to file an Amended Complaint that cured these 

pleading deficiencies. (Id. at 7, citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc) (noting that leave to amend should be granted when complaint is 

dismissed sua sponte under § 1915 “if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can 

correct the defect.”).)

Plaintiff was explicitly warned that should he fail to amend within the time 

granted, the Court would “enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both on 

his failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted ... and his failure to 

prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment.” (ECF No. 3 at 8, 

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’s December 13, 2016 Order. 

Plaintiff has filed no Amended Complaint; nor has he requested an extension of time in 

which to do so. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“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.”).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further 

leave to amend 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 13, 

2016 Order (ECF No. 3).

///

Case 3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB

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

Dated: March 9, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01553-GPC-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3