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