Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00105/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00105-2/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-00105-GPC-JMA

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

JOSE SANTANA,

CDCR #AH-0190,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RONALD ZHANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00105-GPC-JMA

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM AND FOR 

FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN 

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT 

ORDERS REQUIRING 

AMENDMENT

JOSE SANTANA (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, and incarcerated at Richard J. 

Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 14, 2016, claiming that medical officials 

at RJD and two doctors at the Alvarado Medical Center (Butera and Hood) acted with 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, specifically, a methicillin resistant 

staphylococcus aureas infection, which developed and recurred over the course of two 

years in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1 at 21-37.) 

Plaintiff also alleged pendent state law claims of medical negligence and 

malpractice in violation of Cal. Govt. Code §§ 845.6 and 815.2, and the California 

Constitution, Art I, §§ 15, 17. (Id. at 37-48, 50-51.) He sought declaratory and injunctive 

Case 3:16-cv-00105-GPC-JMA Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-00105-GPC-JMA

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

relief, as well as nominal, presumed, and punitive damages. (Id. at 52-53.)

I. Procedural Background

On September 15, 2016, the Court granted Defendant Butera’s and Hood’s 

Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), sua sponte 

dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims as to all remaining RJD defendants for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and declined to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3). (See ECF No. 28 at 33.) This dismissal was without prejudice, and Plaintiff 

was granted 45 days leave in which to amend. (Id.) See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that leave to amend should be granted when 

complaint is dismissed sua sponte under § 1915 “if it appears at all possible that the 

plaintiff can correct the defect.”).

Plaintiff was explicitly cautioned that should he fail to amend within the time 

granted, “his case [would] be dismissed without further leave to amend.” (ECF No. 28 at 

133, 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.”)). 

On November 15, 2016, after the period permitted for amendment elapsed, but 

before the Court could entered a final Order dismissing his entire action for failure to 

state a claim, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s September 15, 

2016 Order (ECF No. 33).

On February 16, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion, but granted him an 

additional 45 days leave, or until approximately April 3, 2017, in which to file his 

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 34 at 5.) Again, Plaintiff was warned that his failure to 

amend within that time would result in dismissal. (Id.)

More than three months have passed since the Court’s February 16, 2017 Order, 

and an additional thirty days have elapsed since Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due. 

However, he has filed no Amended Complaint, and has not requested any additional

Case 3:16-cv-00105-GPC-JMA Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-00105-GPC-JMA

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

extension of time in which to do so. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 

(9th Cir. 2004) (“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.”).

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further 

leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can 

be granted, and his failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance 

with the Court’s September 15, 2016, and February 16, 2017 Orders (ECF Nos. 28, 34).

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 to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00105-GPC-JMA Document 43 Filed 05/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3