Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00071/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00071-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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

Rwayne Johnson,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

ORDER CONFIRMING DISMISSAL 

OF CIVIL ACTION FOR 

PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO (1) 

FILE AN AMENDED PETITION 

AND TO (2) PAY FILING FEE OR 

PROPERLY MOVE TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 6.]

On January 12, 2017, Petitioner Rwayne Johnson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se,

1

initiated this action against the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(“Respondent”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for court-appointed counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.) On April 

19, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on account

of Petitioner’s failure to submit a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement

 

1 On the Civil Cover Sheet submitted with his Complaint, Petitioner indicated that the nature of his suit 

is a “prisoner petition.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Petitioner’s return address is the same as the William P. 

Clements Prison located in Amarillo, Texas. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Document 7 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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

or any other information about his financial status, dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Mandamus for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 

and denied as moot Petitioner’s request for court-appointed counsel.2 (Dkt. No. 4.) Out 

of an abundance of caution, the Court granted Petitioner forty-five days to re-open the 

case by (1) filing an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus which cured all of the 

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court and by (2) paying the appropriate filing 

fee or applying to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the requirements of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (Id.) Petitioner was warned that failure to file an Amended Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus within the time provided would result in a final Order dismissing 

this civil action based both on Petitioner’s failure 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), and his failure to 

prosecute in compliance with a Court order requiring amendment. (Id. at 6 (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 dismissal of the entire action.”)).)

Petitioner subsequently filed, nunc pro tunc to June 8, 2017, what appears to be a 

motion and a proposed order dismissing the instant case for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. 

No. 6.) It is unclear what Petitioner seeks to accomplish by way of this filing. In any 

event, Petitioner’s latest filing contains scattered, incomplete citations to inapposite case 

law and does not address in any fashion the concerns laid out in the Court’s April 19, 

2017 Order. Petitioner has failed to pay the appropriate filing fee or properly move to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Nor has Plaintiff submitted any allegations tending to show 

why he is entitled to any form of relief, much less the issuance of a writ of mandamus. 

Indeed, Plaintiff’s latest filing contains no factual allegations at all and is devoid of any 

 

2 The Court also noted that to the extent Petitioner wishes to appeal a Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

decision regarding his service-connected benefits, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review such decisions. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a).

Case 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Document 7 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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

reference to the relief initially sought. See S.D. Cal. Civ. LR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, 

Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).

Accordingly, the Court CONFIRMS the dismissal of this civil action for 

Petitioner’s failure to file an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus, failure to state a 

claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and failure 

to pay the requisite filing fee or satisfy the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Document 7 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3