Scott v. CDCR

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 09/15/17 DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ED’JUAN SCOTT,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0578 DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appears to be a mentally ill inmate who claims he was

19

ordered to be treated with electro-shock therapy in 2011 and continues to be subjected to electro-

20

shock therapy “remotely.” Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

21

By order filed March 1, 2017, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to

22

file an amended complaint was granted. On April 11, 2017, plaintiff was given an additional

23

thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. In a document filed April 24, 2017, plaintiff

24

sought an extension of time.

25

On May 23, 2017, the court ordered the Office of the Attorney General to address

26

plaintiff’s allegations concerning his mental health care. On June 6, the Attorney General’s

27

Office filed a response to the court’s May 23 order. Therein, the state explains: (1) the Contra

28

Costa County Superior Court has no record of ordering plaintiff to undergo electro-shock therapy;
1

1

(2) plaintiff has not undergone electro-shock therapy during his incarceration at CSP-Sacramento;

2

(3) plaintiff is not currently undergoing electro-shock therapy; and (4) electro-shock therapy is

3

not administered at CSP-Sacramento.
On June 16, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, advising

4
5

plaintiff that he must attempt to state any claims he may have about the past administration of

6

electro-shock therapy. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Finally, on August 2, 2017,

7

the court gave plaintiff one, final opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

8

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s August 2, 2017

9

order.

10

Plaintiff was advised in the August 2 order that if he failed to file a timely amended

11

complaint, this case would be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this

12

action is dismissed without prejudice. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

13

Dated: September 15, 2017

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/scot0578.final

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2