Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02335/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02335-1/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-02335-AJB-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

ROBERT SIMBA MAKONI,

Former Booking #16143756,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT DOWNS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02335-AJB-WVG

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) 

AND FOR FAILING TO 

PROSECUTE PURSUANT 

TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

ROBERT SIMBA MAKONI (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and while detained 

at the San Diego Sheriff’s Department Vista Detention Facility (“VDF”), filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 13, 2016, claiming he was 

subject to abuse and was denied medical attention by Prisoner Transportation Services of 

America employees, two Gwinnett and Clayton County Georgia Sheriff’s Department 

officials, and a doctor employed by the Clayton County Jail,

1 during a 28-day crosscountry extradition transport from VDF to Clayton County, Georgia, beginning in 

 

1 While Plaintiff was detained at VDF at the time of filing, no Defendant was alleged to reside in either 

San Diego or Imperial County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Case 3:16-cv-02335-AJB-WVG Document 15 Filed 06/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-02335-AJB-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

November 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 2-16.)2

I. Procedural Background

On December 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), as well as his Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and

Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 10). At the same time, the Court granted Plaintiff 

leave to supplement his Complaint (ECF No. 9), but sua sponte screened both Plaintiff’s 

original pleading, as well as his proposed supplemental claims, and dismissed them 

without prejudice based on his failure to allege proper venue in the Southern District of 

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff was granted leave to 

re-open his case by either paying the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or 

submitting a properly supported Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), 

and by filing a First Amended Complaint alleging facts sufficient to demonstrate the 

Southern District of California as the proper venue within 30 days. (Id. at 11.) 

On January 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 11), 

but no Amended Complaint. A week later, on January 27, 2017, Plaintiff requested an 

extension of time in which to amend (ECF No. 13). On February 22, 2017, the Court 

granted both Motions, and directed Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint on or 

before April 3, 2017 (ECF No. 14). 

More than three months have passed since the Court’s February 22, 2017 Order, 

but Plaintiff has taken no action. He did not file a First Amended Complaint within the 

time permitted; nor has he requested another extension of time in which to do so.

“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 v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Edwards v. Marin 

Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 

 

2 On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating his subsequent release 

from VDF custody. (ECF No. 7).

Case 3:16-cv-02335-AJB-WVG Document 15 Filed 06/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-02335-AJB-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

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 

prejudice based on its lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the 

Court’s December 13, 2016, and February 22, 2017 Orders (ECF Nos. 10, 14).

The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment 

of dismissal without prejudice, and to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02335-AJB-WVG Document 15 Filed 06/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3