Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01147-0/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-01147-AJB-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

RUDOLPH MOON,

CDCR #B-81661,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W.L. MONTGOMERY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-01147-AJB-RBM

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

Rudolph Moon (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison 

(“CAL”) in Imperial, Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, first filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on June 1, 2018. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 

claimed CAL’s Warden, W.L. Montgomery, and T. Bloom, a CAL Law Librarian, violated 

his First and Eighth Amendment rights in July 2017. (Id. at 1-4.)

I. Procedural History

On July 25, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but

denied his motion to appoint counsel and 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. 4.) Plaintiff was informed of his pleading deficiencies, and 

Case 3:18-cv-01147-AJB-RBM Document 8 Filed 04/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-01147-AJB-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

granted 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 6-

12.) On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6), but it too 

failed to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted, and was dismissed sua 

sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) on January 

4, 2019. (See ECF No. 7). While the Court found further leave to amend as to Warden 

Montgomery would be futile, it granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his claims 

against Law Librarian Bloom in a Second Amended Complaint. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff was

cautioned, however, that if he failed to adequately amend his claims against Defendant 

Bloom, the Court would dismiss his case. (Id. at 10, 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 Second Amended Complaint was due on or before February 19, 2019,

1

and more than two months have passed since the Court issued its January 4, 2019 Order.

But to date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint, nor has he 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 January 4, 2019 Order.

 

1 Because the 45 day period for amendment elapsed on February 18, 2019, which fell on President’s Day, 

Plaintiff had until Tuesday, February 19, 2019, to comply with the Court’s January 4, 2019 Order. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

Case 3:18-cv-01147-AJB-RBM Document 8 Filed 04/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-01147-AJB-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

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: April 2, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01147-AJB-RBM Document 8 Filed 04/02/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3