Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01607/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01607-1/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-01607-MMA-LL 

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 

ANDREW HARLEY, 

CDCR #T-42313, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

QUINDIAHJEN, Correctional Officer, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:19-cv-01607-MMA-LL 

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION 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 Andrew Harley, while incarcerated at California State Prison, Los 

Angeles County (“LAC”), and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Compl.”) against Defendant Quindiahjen, a Correctional Officer 

employed at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, 

on August 26, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. Harley alleged Quindiahjen and several 

other unidentified RJD officers violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to permit 

him to wash his hands or use the restroom during and immediately after he was 

transported from LAC to RJD on July 26, 2018. Id. at 8‒9. He sought $900,000 in 

compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 8, 11. 

Case 3:19-cv-01607-MMA-LL Document 5 Filed 01/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

3:19-cv-01607-MMA-LL 

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

I. Procedural History 

 On October 29, 2019, the Court granted Harley’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state claim pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. Harley was notified of his 

pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed 

them, if he could. Id. at 6-10. Harley was also warned his failure to amend would result 

in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 13 (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.”)). 

Harley’s Amended Complaint was due on or before December 13, 2019, and more 

than two full months have passed since the Court issued its October 29, 2019 Order.1

 But 

to date, Harley has failed to file 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 Harley’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 as required by Court’s October 29, 2019 Order requiring amendment. See also

S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. (“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the 

                                               

1 In fact, the Court’s October 29, 2019 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post 

Office on November 11, 2019, with a notation that Harley has been discharged. See Doc. 

No. 4. He has filed nothing since. The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[a] party 

proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current address.” 

See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. 

Case 3:19-cv-01607-MMA-LL Document 5 Filed 01/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

3:19-cv-01607-MMA-LL 

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 last designated address is returned by the Post Office,” the court may dismiss 

the case after 60 days without prejudice for failure to prosecute.) 

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: January 14, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01607-MMA-LL Document 5 Filed 01/14/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3