Ikey Porter Currey v. K. Seibel, et al.

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Lack of Prosecution by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than June 2, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See Order for complete details) (Attachments: # 1 Courts February 21, 2017 Order, # 2 Civil Rights Complaint (Blank), # 3 Notice of Dismissal (Blank)) (afe)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) No. CV 16-4491 JLS (AS) ) ) ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED Plaintiff, ) v. ) K. SEIBEL, Official Capacity as ) COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ) Associate Warden, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) IKEY PORTER CURRY, 11 12 13 14 15 16 INTRODUCTION 17 18 19 On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff Ikey Porter Curry, a prisoner at the 20 California State Prison, Los Angeles County, in Lancaster, California 21 (“CSP-LAC”), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 Court had screened the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 24 Complaint. 25 Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 26 (Docket Entry No. 8). (Docket Entry No. 1). On July 14, 2016, before the (Docket Entry No. 5 (“FAC”)). 27 28 1 On September 8, 2016, the On 1 December 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the operative Second 2 Amended Complaint in this action. 3 Plaintiff names as Defendants: (1) K. Seibel, an Associate Warden at 4 the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, 5 California; (2) several John Doe correctional officers assigned to 6 deliver 7 Coalinga, California; (3) Debbie Asuncion, the Warden at CSP-LAC; 8 (4) Xavier 9 correctional officers Carter, Flores, and Marin; and (6) Director of the mail Cano, at Pleasant the M.D. Acting Steiner. (Docket Entry No. 17 (“SAC”)). Valley Warden 8-9).1 (5) in CSP-LAC Plaintiff sues 11 Seibel, 12 official and individual capacities and does not specify what capacity 13 he sues the other Defendants in. 14 alleges that Defendants confiscated or mis-delivered his mail. 15 at 10-11). Carter, 3-4, CSP-LAC; (“PVSP”) Corrections Cano, at at Prison 10 Asuncion, (SAC State Flores, and (Id.). Marin in both their Plaintiff principally (Id. 16 The 17 Court has screened the Second Amended Complaint as 18 prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. For reasons 19 discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the Second Amended Complaint 20 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.2 21 // 22 // 23 24 25 26 27 1 For ease of reference, the Court cites the Second Amended Complaint and attached exhibits as though they constitute a single continuously paginated document. 2 Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval from the district judge. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 1 2 3 4 The factual allegations brief and somewhat confusing. of the Second Amended Complaint are Under “Facts,” Plaintiff writes: 5 6 On are [sic] about March 7 attempted to file a civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. sec. 8 1983 in the United States Northern District Court, Case No. 9 CV 14-1250-MEJ-(PR). On 2014, or while about housed April, at 2014, PVSP I I was 10 transferred to [RJD], where I was an unknowing victim of 11 “deliberate indifference” when it came to delivery of the 12 incoming U.S. Mail? 13 Paramo) in which K. Seibel, associate warden, took it upon 14 his self to address my concerns? 15 fact, the harassment got worse? 16 “writ of habeas corpus” of my criminal conviction, I stop 17 pursuing the civil rights complaint, and it was dismissed 18 without prejudice! 19 placed in four (4) building on “B”-yard? 20 inmate, I knew something was wrong? 21 a wheelchair shower? 22 started happening? 23 with 24 selectively passed out my incoming mail? 25 family, asking what’s the problem with the registered mail 26 (U.S. Postal Stamps, legal tablets and envelopes) in which 27 I been receiving since my incarceration, 2010/2011 in the 28 Department a C/O named of So, I wrote to the Warden (Daniel Not [illegible]? In So, being concerned with a I was transferred back to [CSP-LAC] and Being a disabled Because, there wasn’t Then the violations of my U.S. Mail C/O Carter (not her real name) along Frazier (both Corrections, North 3 African-Americans) Kern kept So, I call my State Prison – 1 Reception 2 “deliberate 3 had/have my family to “register mail,” when it comes to my 4 legal supplies! 5 next with the mis-delivering of the incoming U.S. Mail? 6 have written to Internal Affairs of the State of California 7 Department of Corrections, along? 8 answer back? 9 copy of one of the letter dated July 22, 2016 and a letter 10 of 11 Center! complaint So, I’m indifference” aware was going that this on! That They have the receipts! M.D. Steiner, why of I C/O Marin was I (I’ve never received an (So, I’ve documented this?)). to type Director Will attach a dated Dec. 30th, 2013. 12 13 (SAC at 9-10 (some formatting and spelling altered)). 14 claims that he has been “deprived of his right to correspond and 15 received his personal and legal mail without receiving a notification 16 of confiscation, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment . . . and 17 the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 18 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants have given him “meaningless 19 write-ups” to punish him for taking legal action and have placed him 20 on 21 (wheelchair) instead of a regular table[.]” loss-of-privileges status because he “went Plaintiff (Id. at 10-11). to a ADA table (Id. at 11). 22 23 Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief stating (Id. at 11). that Defendants’ 24 actions violate the Constitution. 25 an injunction requiring Marin, Flores, and the Doe defendants to 26 deliver incoming mail and prohibiting Defendants from harassing or 27 punishing him for filing this action. 28 4 (Id.). Plaintiff also seeks Finally, Plaintiff 1 seeks $10,000 in compensatory damages from “all Defendants and each 2 of them,” as well as $10,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 12). 3 Attached 4 to the Second Amended Complaint are exhibits which 5 Plaintiff describes as (1) a December 30, 2013 “letter of complaint” 6 to Steiner; (2) a July 22, 2016 “letter of complaint” to the “Office 7 of Internal Affairs;” (3) a “second level CDCR inmate appeal” dated 8 June 13, 2016; and (4) a January 5, 2016 letter to Cano. 9 13). Many of these documents are illegible, but they (Id. at appear to 10 complain that Plaintiff’s mail was being withheld. (Id. at 14-58). 11 The second level appeal response ruled that, on one occasion, several 12 “peel and seal” envelopes were “disallowed” as contraband, and the 13 prison had no record of stamps or legal tablets arriving addressed to 14 Plaintiff. (See id. at 45-48). 15 STANDARD OF REVIEW 16 17 18 Congress mandates that district courts initially screen civil 19 complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress from a governmental 20 entity or employee. 21 complaint, or any portion thereof, before service of process, if the 22 court concludes that the complaint (1) is frivolous or malicious; 23 (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 24 (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 25 relief. 26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); 27 28 5 A court may dismiss such a see also Lopez v. Smith, 1 Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if a 2 complaint fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief 3 that is 4 550 U.S. 5 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 6 factual content 7 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 8 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. 9 & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013). plausible 544, on 570 its face.” Ashcroft (2007); that Bell v. allows the Atl. Corp. Iqbal, court to 556 draw v. U.S. the Twombly, 662, 678 reasonable A plaintiff must 10 provide more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation 11 of the elements” of his claim. 12 556 U.S. at 678. 13 [complaint] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the 14 . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” 15 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Twombly, 550 16 U.S. at 555). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the Erickson v. 17 In 18 considering whether to dismiss a complaint, a court is 19 generally limited to the pleadings and must construe all “factual 20 allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as true and . . . in the 21 light 22 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). 23 “to be liberally construed” and held to a less stringent standard 24 than those drafted by a lawyer. 25 Hebbe 26 incorporated the Twombly pleading standard and Twombly did not alter 27 courts’ treatment of pro se filings; accordingly, we continue to 28 construe most v. favorable” Pliler, pro se 627 to the F.3d filings plaintiff. Lee v. City of L.A., Moreover, pro se pleadings are Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; see also 338, liberally 6 342 (9th when Cir. 2010) evaluating them (“Iqbal under 1 Iqbal.”). Nevertheless, dismissal for failure to state a claim can 2 be warranted based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or 3 the 4 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 5 2008). 6 claim 7 necessarily defeat the claim. 8 1228–29 (9th Cir. 1984). absence of factual support for a cognizable legal theory. A complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a if it discloses some fact or complete defense that will Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 9 DISCUSSION 10 11 12 The Second Amended Complaint contains deficiencies warranting 13 dismissal, although leave to amend will be granted with respect to 14 certain claims and Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 15 16 A. The Second Amended Complaint Fails to Comply With the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 18 19 The Court again advises Plaintiff of the following requirements 20 under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the formatting 21 of 22 statement 23 relief.” 24 25 a complaint. of the A claim 8 must showing that Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). concise, and direct.” Rule complaint if a contain would short [plaintiff] is and plain entitled to “Each allegation must be simple, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). defendant “a have A complaint violates difficulty understanding and 26 responding to the complaint. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General 27 Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). 28 7 “A 1 party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each 2 limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” 3 Fed. 4 transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” 5 R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate Id. 6 7 As was true of the First Amended Complaint, the Second Amended 8 Complaint names numerous Defendants and includes dozens of pages of 9 exhibits, but its factual allegations are extremely are also brief and 10 conclusory. Plaintiff’s allegations almost wholly 11 12 13 undifferentiated regarding the specific actions that each Defendant is alleged to have taken. Defendants would have difficulty 14 responding to the Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, dismissal for 15 failure to comply with Rule 8 is appropriate. 16 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissal on Rule 8 grounds was 17 warranted where, “[d]espite all the pages, requiring a great deal of 18 time for perusal, one cannot determine from the complaint who is 19 being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail 20 to guide discovery”). See McHenry v. Renne, 21 22 23 B. Plaintiff Fails To Adequately Allege Personal Participation By Supervisory Defendants 24 25 Liability under § 1983 requires a defendant’s personal 26 participation. 27 (citations 28 vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) omitted); see also Iqbal, 8 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because 1 plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through 2 the 3 Constitution.”). 4 violations 5 directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act 6 to prevent them. official’s of own individual actions, has violated the A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional subordinates if the supervisor participated in or Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. 7 Many of the named Defendants appear to be supervisory officials. 8 9 (SAC at 3-4, 8-9). C/O’s under Plaintiff asserts that (1) Seibel is “responsible 10 for 11 address . . . 12 RJD; (2) Asuncion and Cano were legally responsible “for the overall 13 operation of [CSP-LAC] and for the welfare of all inmates of that 14 prison;” and (3) when Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint, Steiner 15 was “responsible for the overall conduct of warden[s], correctional 16 officers 17 Rehabilitation,” and Steiner was also the intended recipient of a 18 2013 “letter of complaint” that Plaintiff wrote regarding the mis- 19 delivery of his mail. and his supervision” and “took it upon his self to concerns” that Plaintiff had raised to the Warden at inmates in California Department of Corrections and (See id. at 8-10). 20 Plaintiff’s allegations against Asuncion and Cano appear to be 21 22 based purely on 23 § 1983 24 personally involved in violating his constitutional rights are vague 25 and conclusory at best. 26 of 27 sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss,” Ivey v. Bd. Of Regents, 28 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Bruns v. Nat’l Credit action, official vicarious and his liability, allegations which that is Seibel inapplicable and Steiner in a were Because “[v]ague and conclusory allegations participation in civil 9 rights violations are not 1 Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997), Plaintiff has not 2 stated a claim against the aforementioned Defendants. 3 claims 4 amend. against these Defendants must be dismissed Plaintiff’s with leave to 5 6 7 C. Plaintiff Must Identify Any Unidentified Defendants Before The Court May Order Service Of Process 8 9 The Second Amended Complaint also names but does not identify 10 several Defendants, 11 delivering the mail at PVSP. 12 complaint 13 Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (complaint may name 14 fictitious “Doe” defendants if defendants’ identities are unknown 15 when an action is commenced), a plaintiff must provide the Court 16 identifying 17 Marshal to effect service of process before the Court may order 18 service. 19 opportunity 20 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642-43 (9th Cir. 1980). may i.e., name to John Doe discover plaintiff the to names of see permit should responsible for Although a plaintiff’s defendants, sufficient a officers (SAC at 3, 8). unidentified information Therefore, the Wakefield the United generally unknown be v. States given defendants. an See 21 22 It is premature to order discovery because the Second Amended 23 Complaint is defective for reasons unrelated to the naming of unknown 24 defendants. 25 advised 26 conduct 27 defendants 28 information to effect service. See Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1163. that, if he discovery and pursues to provide this determine the action, the United 10 he However, Plaintiff is may identities States be of Marshal required any with to unknown enough Plaintiff is also advised that he must establish that every 1 2 Defendant, including 3 involvement in 4 Defendant’s action or inaction caused the harm suffered. 5 v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 Plaintiff’s claims are generally vague and conclusory and, at this 7 stage, he has not provided sufficient allegations to permit the Court 8 to 9 Plaintiff’s civil rights. conclude the that every civil any unknown rights defendant, violations individual had alleged or personal that the See Starr As discussed supra, unknown Defendant violated 10 11 D. Plaintiff’s Claims For Damages Against State Officials In Their Official Capacities Must Be Dismissed 12 13 Some of Plaintiff’s claims for money damages are brought against 14 15 state officers in their official capacities. 16 However, the Eleventh Amendment bars actions in federal court for 17 money 18 capacities. 19 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of 20 Nevada System of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2010). 21 Therefore, 22 official capacities must be dismissed. damages against state officers (See SAC at 3-4, 12). sued in their official See Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 any damages claims against state officers in their 23 24 E. Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim For Relief 25 26 Plaintiff’s principal claim is that Defendants have withheld or 27 mis-delivered his mail. (SAC at 9-10). 28 Amendment right to send and receive mail. 11 Prisoners have a First See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 1 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989). Restrictions on mail are analyzed under 2 the reasonableness standard set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 3 78, 89–91 (1987). 4 when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, 5 the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate 6 penological interests. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 409–14. Under Safley, 482 U.S. at 89. 7 To determine the reasonableness of the regulation, a court must 8 9 consider the following: between whether “valid, 12 alternative means of exercising the right,” (3) the impact that the 13 “accommodation 14 guards 15 alternatives.” 16 a prisoner’s communications, United States v. Wilson, 447 F.2d 1, 8 17 n.4 18 Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). 19 mail delivery generally does not violate an inmate’s First Amendment 20 rights, 21 isolated disruption of an inmate’s mail is not usually sufficient to 22 violate the Constitution, Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d. Cir. 23 2003); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997); Smith v. 24 Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). and (9th of the other Cir. Crofton asserted inmates,” 1971), v. and Roe, (4) “the right government there will absence are have of on ready Prison officials may lawfully examine inspect 170 (2) “whether constitutional and Id. at 89–90. it, legitimate rational interest justify the a 11 to and is connection” forward regulation there 10 put the (1) F.3d non-legal 957, 961 mail (9th for contraband, A short delay in Cir. 1999), and 25 Plaintiff’s claims regarding the mis-delivery of his mail are 26 27 deficient as currently pled. 28 set forth only generally As noted supra, Plaintiff’s claims are and conclusorily, 12 and his allegations 1 provide insufficient factual detail to permit the Court to perform 2 the plausibility analysis required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Twombly, and 3 Iqbal. 4 permissible 5 particularly important that Plaintiff provide enough factual detail 6 to 7 alleged that his rights were violated. 8 the 9 therefore be dismissed with leave to amend. Given permit that under the Safley’s Court mis-delivery numerous of to restrictions reasonableness evaluate his mail on whether are prisoner mail standard, Plaintiff has are it is plausibly Plaintiff’s claims related to insufficiently pled and must given him 10 Plaintiff 11 also alleges that Defendants have 12 “meaningless write-ups” to punish him for taking legal action and 13 have placed him on loss-of-privileges status because he “went to a 14 ADA table (wheelchair) instead of a regular table[.]” 15 These 16 retaliation claim or a claim under the Americans with Disabilities 17 Act (“ADA”). allegations may be intended to state a (SAC at 11). First Amendment 18 “‘A 19 prisoner suing prison officials under Section 1983 for 20 retaliation must allege that he was retaliated against for exercising 21 his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action does not 22 advance 23 institutional order and discipline.’” 24 1288 25 “plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s [retaliatory] actions 26 caused him some injury.” 27 Cir. 2000). 28 Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion legitimate (9th Cir. penological 2003) (citations goals, such as preserving Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, omitted). Additionally, the Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Thus, in the prison context, a viable claim of First 13 1 that a state 2 (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such 3 action 4 rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 5 correctional goal. 6 2009). (4) actor chilled took the some adverse inmate’s action exercise of against his an First inmate Amendment Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 7 Title 8 9 II of the Americans with Disabilities Act “prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of disability.” (ADA) Lovell v. 10 Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of 12 such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the 13 benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, 14 or be subject to discrimination by such entity.” 15 Title 16 Pennsylvania 17 (1998). 18 plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a 19 disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise 20 discriminated 21 programs, or activities; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was 22 by reason of [his] disability.” 23 also 24 individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice 25 made unlawful by this chapter.” II of the Dept. “To provides ADA of that to Corrections establish against applies a with “[n]o v. violation regard to inmates Yeskey, of a Title public Title II provides 42 U.S.C. § 12132. in 524 II state U.S. of shall entity’s discriminate 206, the Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1052. person prisons. 213 ADA, a services, The ADA against any See also 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). 26 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not adequately allege 27 28 a First Amendment retaliation claim 14 or a claim under the ADA. 1 Particularly, Plaintiff provides no facts or “chronology of events” 2 tending to show a plausible causal connection between the adverse 3 actions alleged and Plaintiff’s complaints or a disability. 4 Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Lovell, 303 5 F.3d at 1052; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. See 6 7 8 Because Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief, the Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 9 CONCLUSION 10 11 12 13 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to correct the aforementioned defects. 14 15 If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he shall file a 16 Third Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of this 17 Order or no later than March 23, 2017. 18 must cure the pleading defects discussed above and shall be complete 19 in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 20 (“Every amended pleading filed as a matter of right or allowed by 21 order of the Court shall be complete including exhibits. 22 pleading shall not refer to the prior, superseded pleading.”). 23 means that Plaintiff must allege and plead any viable claims in any 24 prior complaint again. The Third Amended Complaint See L.R. 15-2 The amended This 25 26 In any Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should identify the 27 nature of each separate legal claim and confine his allegations to 28 those operative facts supporting 15 each of his claims. For each 1 separate legal claim, Plaintiff should state the civil right that has 2 been violated and the supporting facts for that claim only. 3 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a 4 “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 5 entitled 6 allegations in the Third Amended Complaint should be consistent with 7 the authorities discussed above. 8 Complaint may not include new Defendants or claims not reasonably 9 related to to relief.” the However, allegations in Plaintiff is advised Pursuant that the In addition, the Third Amended the previously filed complaints. 10 Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to once again utilize the standard 11 civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy 12 of which is attached. 13 Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a 14 15 Third Amended Complaint, 16 described above, may result in a recommendation that this action, or 17 portions 18 prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders. 19 Civ. P. 41(b). 20 // 21 // 22 // thereof, be or failure dismissed with 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 to correct prejudice the for deficiencies failure to See Fed. R. 1 Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to 2 pursue this action in its entirety or with respect to particular 3 Defendants or claims, he may voluntarily dismiss all or any part of 4 this 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 6 is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience. action by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance A form Notice of Dismissal 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: February 21, 2017 11 12 13 ______________/s/_____________ ALKA SAGAR United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 with

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?