Sanchez v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATEA CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983; DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(G) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/25/2014. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
LELAND SANCHEZ,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:13-cv-01516-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983
(Docs. 1 and 7)

14
Defendants.
15

ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT
TO 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(G)

_____________________________________/
16
Plaintiff Leland Sanchez, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

17

18 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 18, 2013. On May 21,
19 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under section 1983 and
20 ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. §
21 1915(e). More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise
1
22 responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any

23 claims upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action is

24

25 HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which
26
27
28

1

Error! Main Document Only.On May 30, 2014, the United States Postal Service returned the order as
undeliverable. A notation on the envelope states “attempted – not known.” However, Plaintiff has not notified the
Court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local
Rule 182(f).

1 relief may be granted under section 1983. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision
2 set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 25, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2