Mendoza-Hernandez v. Coggins et al

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted and ORDER That Dismissal is Subject to 28 U.S.C. 1915(G) signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/14/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CESAR MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00271-AWI-SKO (PC)

11

Plaintiff,

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

v.

12

D. COGGINS, et al.,

13

(Docs. 5, 9, 10, and 16)
Defendants.

14

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

15
_____________________________________/
16

Plaintiff Cesar Mendoza-Hernandez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17

18 pauperis, filed this civil rights action on August 8, 2014, in the Dallas Division of the United
19 States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court severed Plaintiff’s
20 claims arising from events at United States Penitentiary-Atwater and transferred them to the
21 Eastern District of California on February 20, 2015. On March 17, 2015, the Court dismissed
22 Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and ordered Plaintiff to file a second
1
23 amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). More than

24 thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s
25
26
27
28

1

Federal officers may be held liable for damages for the violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights, Correctional
Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 519 (2001) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971)), and given the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, this
action was construed as brought pursuant to Bivens.

1 order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may
2 be granted.
3

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action is

4 HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which
5 relief may be granted. This dismissal is subject to the “three-strikes” provision set forth in 28
6 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: May 14, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2