Nicholas Buskirk v. Holland et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, with Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief may be Granted under Section 1983; ORDER that Dismissal is Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/11/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
NICHOLAS E. BUSKIRK,

5

Case No. 1:14-cv-01249-AWI-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff,

6

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983

v.

7

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
& REHABILITATION, et al.,

8
9

Defendants.

10

(Docs. 1 and 7)
ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)

_____________________________________/

11
Plaintiff Nicholas E. Buskirk, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
12
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 8, 2014. On March 16, 2015,
13

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under section 1983 and

14
ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. §
15
1915(e). More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise
16

responded to the Court’s order.1 As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any

17
claims upon which relief may be granted.
18
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action is
19
20

HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under section 1983. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision

21
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24

Dated: May 11, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

1

On April 6, 2015, the United States Postal Service returned the order as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope
indicated that Plaintiff was discharged from prison. 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).