Patten v. California Correctional Health Care Services et al
Filing
19
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim; ORDER that Dismissal is Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/23/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JASON PATTEN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:13-cv-01289-EPG-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 1.)
R. ATIENZA, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS
SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE
CASE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I.
BACKGROUND
24
Jason Patten (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
25
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
26
August 15, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge
27
jurisdiction in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an
28
appearance. (ECF No. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the
1
Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case
2
until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
3
On January 21, 2015, the court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A
4
and entered an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend
5
within thirty days. (ECF No. 6.) On February 24, 2015, the court dismissed this case and
6
entered judgment, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the thirty-day deadline in the
7
court’s order. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of
8
address and a motion for clarification of the status of his case. (ECF No. 16.)
9
discovered that Plaintiff’s earlier change of address had not been properly reflected on the
10
Court’s docket, causing Plaintiff’s court mail to be sent to the wrong address. Based on this
11
finding, the Court reopened Plaintiff’s case on October 2, 2015, served Plaintiff with a copy of
12
the January 21, 2015 order, and granted Plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended
13
complaint. (ECF No. 17.)
It was
14
More than forty-five days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise
15
responded to the Court=s October 2, 2015 order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which
16
sets forth any claims upon which relief may be granted. In the January 21, 2015 order, the
17
Court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint on
18
the ground that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
19
Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the Court dismisses the claims
20
made in the original complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which the Court
21
could grant relief. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be
22
given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a
23
claim).
24
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), this action is
26
DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim upon which relief may
27
be granted under § 1983;
28
///
1
2
3
2.
This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). Silva v. Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011); and
3.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 23, 2015
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?