Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01460/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01460-1/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-01460-AJB-MSB

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

PAUL DAVID HAAG,

CDCR #BJ-0331,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF DEP’T; LVN 

#6131, Registered Nurse; LVN #6222, 

Registered Nurse; LVN #6977, Registered 

Nurse; LVN #7403, Registered Nurse,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB

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

Paul David Haag (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the California Medical Facility 

located in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 2, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural History

On September 23, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.)

Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to 

file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 5-9.)

Case 3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB

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

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before November 7, 2019 and nearly 

four months have passed since the Court issued its September 23, 2019 Order. But to date, 

Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time

in which to do so. “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)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s September 23, 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.

Dated: January 17, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB Document 4 Filed 01/17/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2