Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00348/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00348-1/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-00348-MMA-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 

TYRELL SALAZAR, 

CDCR# AC-4902, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

E. MONTEJANO, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:19-cv-00348-MMA-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 

Plaintiff Tyrell Salazar, while housed at Centinela State Prison located in Imperial, 

California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 on April 3, 2019. See Doc. No. 4. On April 18, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any 

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 8. Plaintiff 

was informed of his pleading deficiencies and granted forty-five (45) days leave in which 

to file an Amended Complaint that cured those deficiencies. Id. at 6-9. 

More than three months have passed since the Court’s April 18, 2019 Order, but to 

date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not asked for an extension of time in which to 

do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either 

Case 3:19-cv-00348-MMA-WVG Document 9 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

3:19-cv-00348-MMA-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

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). 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with 

the Court’s April 18, 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. 

DATE: August 9, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-00348-MMA-WVG Document 9 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2