Huff v. Sherman et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/15/18. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICK HUFF,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:16-cv-01117-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
(ECF No. 15.)

WARDEN SHERMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Erick Huff (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the

21

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)

22

On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint as a matter of course.

23

(ECF No. 15.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued a screening order

24

on February 12, 2018, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to file a

25

Second Amended Complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 16.) The thirty-day time period

26

expired, and Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise responded to the

27

screening order. As a result, there was no pleading on file which set forth any claims upon

28

which relief may be granted.
1

1

On April 2, 2018, the court entered findings and recommendations to dismiss this case

2

for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 18.) On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed

3

objections to the findings and recommendations, requesting a thirty-day extension of time.

4

(ECF No. 19.)

5

recommendations and granting Plaintiff thirty more days to file the Second Amended

6

Complaint. (ECF No. 20.)

On April 23, 2018, the court issued an order vacating the findings and

7

The latest thirty-day deadline to file the Second Amended Complaint has expired, and

8

Plaintiff has not filed the Second Amended Complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s

9

order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief

10

may be granted.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this case is

13

DISMISSED, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon

14

which relief may be granted under § 1983;

15

2.

16
17

This dismissal is subject to the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
and

3.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 15, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2