Albert John Hamilton Jr v. Jurban et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (3 0) days from the date of this memorandum and Order within which to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of which is attached. P laintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to pursue this action he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiffs convenience. (See document for further details). (Attachments: # 1 Civil Rights Complaint Form, # 2 Notice of Dismissal Form) (mr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALBERT JOHN HAMILTON JR.,
12
Case No. CV 17-5297 ODW (SS)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
v.
13
DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED
J. URBAN, et al.,
14
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Defendants.
15
16
17
I.
18
INTRODUCTION
19
20
On July 18, 2017, Plaintiff Albert John Hamilton, Jr., a
21
California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
22
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Dkt. No. 1), which the
23
Court dismissed with leave to amend due to defects in pleading.1
24
(Dkt. No. 7). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended
25
Complaint (“FAC”).
(Dkt. No. 10).
26
27
28
Magistrate Judges may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend
without approval of the District Judge.
See McKeever v. Block,
932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).
1
1
Congress mandates that district courts perform an initial
2
screening of complaints in civil actions where a prisoner seeks
3
redress
4
§ 1915A(a).
5
of it, before service of process if it concludes that the complaint
6
(1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon
7
which relief can be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief from a
8
defendant who is immune from such relief.
from
a
governmental
entity
or
employee.
28
U.S.C.
The court may dismiss such a complaint, or any portion
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
9
10
The facts underlying the Complaint and the FAC are largely
11
the same.
Plaintiff once again complains that he was wrongfully
12
given a TB skin test by a prison nurse and that the response to
13
his administrative appeal challenging the propriety of that test
14
contained
15
Plaintiff will be able to state a constitutional claim based on
16
these facts, and indeed, the FAC repeats nearly all of the material
17
defects
18
Nonetheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity
19
to attempt to state a claim.
20
future amended pleading does not cure the defects that the Court
21
has now twice identified in the original Complaint and the FAC,
22
the Court may conclude that further attempts at amendment would be
23
futile and recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice
24
for failure to state a claim.
25
284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any amendment would
26
be futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting
27
further amendment.”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4
28
Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district
a
that
factual
inaccuracy.
required
dismissal
The
of
Court
the
is
doubtful
original
that
Complaint.
Plaintiff is cautioned that if any
See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp.,
2
1
court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad
2
where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”) (internal
3
quotation marks omitted); Mir v. Fosburg, 646 F.2d 342, 347 (9th
4
Cir. 1980) (same).
5
FAC is DISMISSED, with leave to amend.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the
6
7
II.
8
ALLEGATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT2
9
10
Plaintiff sues four employees of the California Men’s Colony
11
State
Prison
12
(1) nurse
13
(3) M. Morrisroe;
14
(collectively “Defendants”).
J.
(“CMC”)
Urban;
in
their
supervising
and
(4)
Chief
individual
capacities
nurses
M.
Support
(2)
only:
Trujillo
Executive
M.
and
Wallace
(FAC at 3-4).
15
16
Plaintiff alleges that he has previously tested positive for
17
tuberculosis.
18
classified
19
Rehabilitation
20
“significant reaction” to a “prior exposure” to TB.
21
7).
by
(Id. at 4).
the
As a result, since 1987 he has been
California
(“CDCR”)
as
Department
“Code
32,”
of
meaning
Corrections
that
he
and
had
a
(Id. at 4,
Although California “mandates TB testing of inmates on an
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pro se pleadings are “to be liberally construed” and are held to
a less stringent standard than those drafted by a lawyer. Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Some of the terms
used in the FAC are not self explanatory, but are clarified by the
attachments to the FAC or by reference to case law. The Court will
cite to the FAC and its attached exhibits by the CM/ECF number at
the top of each page as docketed on the Court’s system.
2
3
1
annual basis,” (id. at 71), Code 32 prisoners are not given PPD
2
(i.e., skin) tests.3
(Id. at 7).
3
4
Urban refused to review medical records showing that Plaintiff
5
was classified as “Code 32” before “inject[ing] [him] with a TB-
6
skin test” on May 8, 2015.
7
any specific injury from the “illegal injection,” but states that
8
“Plaintiff is not a doctor so how would Plaintiff know what his
9
medical Problem is without seeing a[n] outside doctor?”
(Id. at 5).
The FAC does not allege
(Id. at
10
5, 8).
11
the Plaintiff significant injury because she violated the CDCR-HC-
12
TB DOM #54055.1 (TB Alert System) . . . .”
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
However, the FAC alleges that Urban “may of [sic] caused
(Id. at 9).
The FAC
“The current test for detecting latent tuberculosis infection is
the Purified Protein Derivative Test, or PPD (‘PPD’ or ‘skin
test’).” Selah v. Goord, 255 F. Supp. 2d 42, 46 (N.D. N.Y. 2003)
(internal citations and footnote omitted). “The PPD test involves
injecting a precise amount of purified protein derivative of
tuberculin under the skin on the patient’s forearm.” Metheney v.
Anderson, 953 F. Supp. 854, 856 (N.D. Ohio 1996). “Tuberculin is
a mix of purified proteins produced from dead TB bacteria[,] which
means the administration of a TB skin test will not infect an
individual with TB or any other disease or virus.” Richburg v.
Daniels, 2015 WL 5008274, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 20, 2015).
3
“If an individual has a reaction to the injection that includes a
thickening of the skin with a measurable induration, the individual
has likely been infected with latent tuberculosis.” Selah, 255 F.
Supp. 2d at 46. “Once an individual is infected, he will likely
carry the bacteria forever. He may, however, show no symptoms of
the disease for some length of time; such an individual is said to
have ‘latent’ tuberculosis, which is not contagious under normal
circumstances.” Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 471-72 (2d Cir.
1996).
“However, a positive PPD test does not constitute a diagnosis of
TB. TB is diagnosed by chest x-ray. A positive PPD test with a
negative chest x-ray shows only that a person has been exposed to
TB. The person does not have TB and cannot transmit TB.” McNeal
v. United States, 979 F. Supp. 431, 432 n.3 (N.D. W.Va. 1997).
4
1
further
alleges
that
Urban
is
“in
violation
of
causing
the
2
Plaintiff over the time un-necesser [sic] Paine and maybe dread,
3
because of her medical negligence . . . .”
(Id. at 10).
4
5
On June 25, 2015, Trujillo “filed” a false report regarding
6
the incident, which Morrisroe and Wallace also signed.
(Id.).
The
7
report was false because it stated that Plaintiff “took a TB test
8
at (MJC) [Men’s Central Jail] on 8/11/14,” even though other
9
records show that Plaintiff was at Wasco State Prison on that date.
10
(Id.).
Trujillo, Morrisroe and Wallace signed the report to cover
11
up
May
12
administered.
the
8,
2015
“illegal
(TB)
skin
test”
that
Urban
had
(Id. at 3-4).
13
14
The FAC does not clearly articulate the legal basis for
15
Plaintiff’s
claims.
However,
construing
the
FAC
liberally,
16
Plaintiff appears to contend that Urban is liable for medical
17
malpractice and deliberate indifference to his serious medical
18
needs. (See id. at 3, 10). Plaintiff further states that Trujillo,
19
Morrisroe and Wallace are “all guilty of falsifying a public
20
document . . . [and] offering a forged document.”
21
Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in monetary damages from each Defendant.
22
(Id. at 12).
(Id. at 11).
23
24
III.
25
DISCUSSION
26
27
28
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court dismisses the FAC
due to defects in pleading.
A pro se litigant in a civil rights
5
1
case, however, must be given leave to amend his or her complaint
2
unless
3
complaint cannot be cured by amendment.”
4
F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation
5
marks omitted).
6
more opportunity to state a claim, and dismisses the FAC with leave
7
to amend.
“it
is
absolutely
clear
that
the
deficiencies
of
the
See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698
Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff one
8
9
A.
10
The FAC Fails To State Claims For Negligence And Medical
Malpractice
11
12
Plaintiff
alleges
that
Urban
is
liable
(FAC at 10).
for
“medical
13
malpractice along with negligence.”4
However, the
14
FAC does not satisfy the procedural requirements for alleging state
15
law tort claims (such as negligence or medical malpractice) against
16
government actors.
17
18
As the Court previously explained, pursuant to the California
19
Government Claims Act (“CGCA”),5 a plaintiff may not bring an action
20
for damages against a public employee or entity unless he first
21
presents a written claim to the local governmental entity within
22
six months of the accrual of the incident.
See Mabe v. San
23
Medical malpractice is “a species of professional negligence.”
Martinez-Serrano v. Quality Health Servs. Of Puerto Rico, Inc.,
568 F.3d 278, 285 (1st Cir. 2009).
4
24
25
26
27
28
The short title “Government Claims Act” has been used
interchangeably in California cases with the title “Tort Claims
Act” to refer to the statutory scheme for presenting claims for
money damages against governmental entities. See City of Stockton
v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 730, 741-42 (2007).
5
6
1
Bernadino County, Dept. of Public Social Services, 237 F.3d 1101,
2
1111
3
Furthermore, a plaintiff must affirmatively allege compliance with
4
the
5
compliance should be excused.
6
67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995).
7
administrative remedy [under the CGCA] is a jurisdictional, not a
8
procedural, defect.”
9
App. 3d 878, 890 (1985); see also Cornejo v. Lightbourne, 220 Cal.
10
App. 4th 932, 938 (2013) (“Ordinarily, filing a claim with a public
11
entity pursuant to the Claims Act is a jurisdictional element of
12
any cause of action for damages against the public entity . . .”).
(9th
CGCA’s
Cir.
2001);
claims
see
also
presentation
Cal.
Gov’t
requirement,
Code
or
§
945.4.6
explain
why
Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n,
“The failure to exhaust an
Miller v. United Airlines, Inc., 174 Cal.
13
14
To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert causes
15
of action for negligence or medical malpractice, the claims fail
16
because the FAC does not allege that Plaintiff satisfied the CGCA
17
claims presentation requirement before filing suit.
18
the FAC is dismissed, with leave to amend.
19
cautioned that he should not assert a state law tort claim unless
20
he can either show that he presented his claim to the appropriate
21
agency prior to filing suit or explain why exhaustion should be
22
excused under the particular circumstances of this case.
23
\\
24
\\
25
\\
26
27
28
Accordingly,
Plaintiff is once again
The claim presentation requirement under the CGCA is separate
from, and is not satisfied by, internal prison grievance processes.
See Hendon v. Ramsey, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1069–70 (S.D. Cal.
2007).
6
7
1
2
B.
The FAC Fails To State A Claim For Deliberate Indifference To
Serious Medical Needs
3
4
The FAC states that the administration of “the illegal TB-
5
injection” violated the “Civil Rights Act.”
6
appears
7
indifference to serious medical needs against Urban.
8
Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim is defective.
to
be
attempting
to
state
a
(FAC at 8).
claim
for
Plaintiff
deliberate
However,
9
10
As
the
Court
previously
explained,
to
state
an
Eighth
11
Amendment claim based on unconstitutional medical care, a prisoner
12
must show that the defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to his
13
“serious medical needs.”
14
Cir. 2006).
15
must demonstrate that “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition
16
could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and
17
wanton infliction of pain.’”
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th
To establish a “serious medical need,” the prisoner
Id. (citation omitted).
18
19
To establish the defendant’s “deliberate indifference” to a
20
serious
medical
need,
a
plaintiff
must
demonstrate:
“(a)
a
21
purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or
22
possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.”
23
(Id.).
24
deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or
25
it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide
26
medical care.”
27
been subjectively aware of a serious risk of harm and must have
28
consciously disregarded that risk.
Deliberate indifference “may appear when prison officials
(Id.) (citations omitted).
8
The defendant must have
1
Here, Plaintiff alleges that because he has tested positive
2
for TB since 1987, Urban should not have administered a PPD skin
3
test.
4
medical risk in administering a TB skin test to a patient who
5
previously had a positive reaction to the test, and that Urban
6
deliberately refused to review Plaintiff’s medical records before
7
administering the test despite Plaintiff’s objections, the FAC does
8
not state a claim for deliberate indifference because Plaintiff
9
has not shown that he suffered any harm from the test.
Even assuming, without deciding, that there may be some
Plaintiff
10
alleges that the skin test “could have caused [him] un-necessary
11
pain or dread.”
12
does not allege that he actually suffered any physical harm as a
13
result of the test, which he claims “only a[n] outside doctor can
14
tell.”
(FAC at 11) (emphasis added).
However, Plaintiff
(Id. at 8)
15
16
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides in relevant part:
17
18
No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner
19
confined
20
facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while
21
in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.”
in
a
jail,
prison
or
other
correctional
22
23
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The Ninth Circuit has determined that section
24
1997e(e)’s “physical injury” requirement demands a showing of a
25
“physical injury that need not be significant but must be more than
26
de minimis” before a prisoner may recover damages for emotional
27
injuries.
28
(claim for “mental and emotional injury” due to prison overcrowding
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002)
9
1
barred where the only physical injuries alleged were a canker sore
2
and back and leg pain from sleeping on benches and the floor); see
3
also Wood v. Idaho Dept. of Corr., 391 F. Supp. 2d 852, 867 (D.
4
Id. 2005) (deliberate indifference claim for “worry and distress”
5
due to delay of scheduled hepatitis vaccinations barred where
6
prisoner did not contract hepatitis during the delay); Glosson v.
7
Morales, 469 F. Supp. 2d 827, 830 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (prisoner’s
8
excessive force claim for “physical and mental anguish” barred
9
where
10
the
physical
injuries
suffered
were
minor
abrasions,
scratches and bumps).
11
12
The FAC fails to state facts establishing that the harm
13
Plaintiff suffered was more than simple anxiety.
14
unsupported speculation that he might have suffered some other harm
15
that only an outside doctor could diagnose is insufficient to
16
support an Eighth Amendment claim.
17
WL 347194, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2009) (prisoner’s contention
18
following exposure to contaminant that cursory medical exam was
19
insufficient to detect latent injuries that could manifest in the
20
future did not allege non-speculative harm required for deliberate
21
indifference claim); Maciel v. California Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.,
22
2016 WL 6988640, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2016) (transfer of
23
prisoner to area where valley fever was endemic did not state
24
deliberate indifference claim where prisoner’s positive skin test
25
only indicated exposure to the fungus and the complaint did not
26
allege
27
Accordingly, the FAC is dismissed, with leave to amend.
that
prisoner
actually
28
10
Plaintiff’s
See Rodriguez v. Evans, 2009
contracted
the
disease).
1
C.
The FAC Fails To State A Claim Against Trujillo, Morrisroe
2
And Wallace
3
4
Plaintiff alleges that Trujillo, Morrisroe and Wallace are
5
liable for “falsifying a public document,” i.e., their response to
6
his second-level administrative appeal,7 by stating that he “took
7
a TB test at (MCJ) on 8/11/2014,” even though he was at Wasco State
8
Prison on that date.
9
Defendants were mistaken as to where -- or even whether -- Plaintiff
a
prior
(FAC at 10).
TB
test,
Even assuming that these three
10
received
Plaintiff
has
not
identified
what
11
constitutional right, if any, was violated or alleged facts showing
12
that he was harmed in any way by the error.
13
14
The simple denial of an administrative grievance, without
15
more,
is
insufficient
to
establish
liability
under
42
U.S.C.
16
§ 1983.
17
1999).
18
his
19
defendant’s only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional
20
conduct is ‘the denial of administrative grievances or the failure
See Shehee v. Luttrell, 1999 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.
A plaintiff “cannot state a constitutional claim based on
dissatisfaction
with
the
grievance
process.
Where
the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff identifies the allegedly “false report” as a “CDCR-HCappeal document,” (FAC at 12), and attaches as an exhibit to the
FAC a copy of the appeal response signed by Defendants. (Id. at
71-72). The Court notes that the appeal response not only states
that Plaintiff received a TB test at the Los Angeles County Jail
on August 11, 2014, in which his induration was noted to be 0mm,
but also that Plaintiff signed a consent form assenting to the May
2015 TB test at issue in the FAC, which also resulted in an
induration of 0mm. (Id. at 71). While Plaintiff challenges the
accuracy of the representations concerning the August 2014 TB test,
he does not challenge the accuracy of the representations
concerning the May 2015 test.
7
11
1
to act, the defendant cannot be liable under § 1983.’”
Grenning
2
v. Klemme, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1144, 1157 (E.D. Wash. 2014) (quoting
3
Shehee, 199 F.3d at 300).
4
right to a particular grievance process.
5
639 (9th Cir. 1988).
Additionally, there is no constitutional
Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d
6
7
Here, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claim against Trujillo,
8
Morrisroe and Wallace can be construed to allege the wrongful
9
denial of his appeal, (FAC at 3-4), such a claim is not actionable
10
under section 1983.
To the extent that Plaintiff is challenging
11
the accuracy of a statement of fact in the grievance response that
12
these Defendants signed, that, too, does not state a constitutional
13
claim.
14
inaccurate information does not, by itself, violate the subject’s
15
constitutional rights.
16
F.2d 1093, 1097 (1st Cir. 1987) (allegation that police department
17
maintained false information without a showing that the information
18
was or would be used to deprive the inmate of a constitutionally
19
protected interest failed to state a due process claim); Pruett v.
20
Levi,
21
inaccuracy in FBI criminal file does not state constitutional
22
claim).
23
information about where he was on August 11, 2014 was, will, or
24
even could be used against him.
25
with leave to amend.
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
The simple fact that an institutional record contains
622
F.2d
256,
Plaintiff
See, e.g., Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 834
258
has
(6th
not
Cir.
alleged
1980)
that
(mere
the
existence
allegedly
of
false
Accordingly, the FAC is dismissed,
12
1
D.
The FAC Violates Rule 8
2
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a
4
complaint contain “‘a short and plain statement of the claim
5
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give
6
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
7
grounds upon which it rests.’”
8
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).
9
violated when a pleading “says too little” and “when a pleading
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
Rule 8 may be
10
says too much.”
11
2013) (emphasis in original); see also Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1058-
12
59
13
difficulty understanding and responding to the complaint).
(a
complaint
Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.
violates
Rule
8
if
a
defendant
would
have
14
15
The FAC violates Rule 8 because Plaintiff does not clearly
16
identify the nature of each of his legal claims and the specific
17
facts giving rise to each individual claim.
18
does not clearly state what constitutional right each individual
19
Defendant may have violated.
20
one
21
previous orders in this action and documents from Plaintiff’s other
22
civil rights and habeas proceedings that have no relation to this
23
case and do not clarify or advance Plaintiff’s current claims.
24
(See FAC at 13-128).
25
citations and statements of law.
hundred
pages
of
For example, the FAC
Additionally, the FAC attaches over
undifferentiated
“exhibits,”
including
The FAC also includes unnecessary case
(See, e.g., id. at 8).
26
27
Finally, the FAC’s repeated allegations that Defendants failed
28
to adhere to CDCR regulations do not state a constitutional claim.
13
1
The mere violation of state prison regulations, by itself, is not
2
actionable under § 1983.
3
Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921, 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (“‘[T]here is no § 1983
4
liability for violating prison policy.
5
[the
6
(quoting Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997)).
7
Accordingly, the FAC is dismissed, with leave to amend.
official]
violated
See Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff’s
his
[Plaintiff] must prove that
constitutional
right
. . . .’”))
8
9
IV.
10
CONCLUSION
11
12
For the reasons stated above, the First Amended Complaint is
13
dismissed, with leave to amend.
If Plaintiff still wishes to
14
pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date
15
of this memorandum and Order within which to file a Second Amended
16
Complaint.
17
defects described above.
In any amended complaint, Plaintiff shall cure the
18
19
Furthermore, Plaintiff shall omit any claims or allegations
20
that are not reasonably related to the claims asserted in the
21
Complaint, but shall instead attempt to cure the deficiencies
22
addressed in this Order.
23
shall be complete in itself and shall bear both the designation
24
“Second Amended Complaint” and the case number assigned to this
25
action.
26
or the FAC.
27
\\
28
\\
The Second Amended Complaint, if any,
It shall not refer in any manner to the original Complaint
14
1
In
any
amended
complaint,
Plaintiff
should
confine
his
2
allegations to the operative facts supporting each of his claims.
3
Plaintiff
4
Procedure 8(a), all that is required is a “short and plain statement
5
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
6
Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to utilize the standard civil
7
rights complaint form when filing any amended complaint, a copy of
8
which is attached.
9
identify the nature of each separate legal claim and make clear
is
advised
that
pursuant
to
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should
10
what specific factual allegations support his claims.
Plaintiff
11
is strongly encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit
12
irrelevant details.
13
law or include legal argument.
It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case
14
15
Plaintiff is explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file
16
a Second Amended Complaint, or failure to correct the deficiencies
17
described above, will result in a recommendation that this action
18
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey Court
19
orders
pursuant
to
Federal Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
41(b).
20
21
Plaintiff is further advised that if he no longer wishes to
22
pursue this action he may voluntarily dismiss it by filing a Notice
23
\\
24
\\
25
\\
26
\\
27
\\
28
15
1
of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
2
41(a)(1).
3
convenience.
A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff’s
4
5
DATED:
February 9, 2018
/S/
__________
SUZANNE H. SEGAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
THIS DECISION IS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN LEXIS, WESTLAW OR
ANY OTHER LEGAL DATABASE.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
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?