Sample v. Corizon Health
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 Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/24/15. CASE CLOSED (Strike). (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
RUSTY WAYNE SAMPLE,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
Case No. 1:15-cv-00164-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY
BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 1983
CORIZON HEALTH,
13
(Docs. 1 and 7)
Defendant.
14
ORDER THAT DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G)
15
_____________________________________/
16
Plaintiff Rusty Wayne Sample, a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
17
1
18 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 27, 2015. On October 28,
19 2015, 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 since passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or
22 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth
23 any 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 relief may be granted under section 1983. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision
27 ///
28
1
Plaintiff was in jail when he filed suit.
1 set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, __ U.S. __, __, 125 S.Ct. 1759, 1765
2 (2015).
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated:
December 24, 2015
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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
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?