Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01772/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01772-2/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

3:17-cv-1772-LAB-BLM

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

RONALD C. DIAZ,

F-45125

Plaintiff,

vs.

N. McGEE; S. RUTHLEDGE; D. 

HOLBROOK; J. WILBORN; 

CALVERT; RICHARD J. DONOVAN 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-1772-LAB-BLM

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

I. Procedural History

Ronald C. Diaz (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated the California State Prison - Los Angeles 

County located in Lancaster, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action, 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff did not 

prepay the $400 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). 

On September 25, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, 

conducted its mandatory initial screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and dismissed it sua 

sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) 

Case 3:17-cv-01772-LAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-1772-LAB-BLM

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

(ECF No. 3). The Court also granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to file an Amended 

Complaint that addressed the deficiencies of pleading it identified. (Id.). See also Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court should 

grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it 

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted).

On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF 

No. 4.) The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC sua sponte for failing to state a claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff again given 45 

days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint to address the deficiencies of pleading 

identified in the Court’s Order. (Id.) 

That time has since passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint. 

“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) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to 

prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s November 13, 

2017 Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the 

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2018

____________________________________

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01772-LAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 01/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2