Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02094/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02094-0/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

3:17-CV-2094-JLS-NLS

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

PATRICK HENRY RIVERA, JR.,

17155995

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHINO PRISON CIM; GEORGE 

BAILEY DETENTION FACILITY,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-CV-2094-JLS-NLS

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

I. Procedural History

Patrick Henry Rivera, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not 

prepay the $400 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (ECF No. 2). 

On November 9, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, conducted 

its mandatory initial screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and dismissed it sua sponte for 

failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), (ECF No. 3).

The Court also granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that 

Case 3:17-cv-02094-JLS-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-CV-2094-JLS-NLS

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

addressed the deficiencies of pleading it identified. (Id.) See also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend 

even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading 

could not possibly be cured.” (citations omitted)).

That time has since passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint. 

“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) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s November 19, 2017 Order. The Clerk of 

Court is directed to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02094-JLS-NLS Document 5 Filed 01/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2