Peyton v. Grounds

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 6/9/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 LEE EDWARD PEYTON, Case No. 13-4232-VC (PR) Plaintiff, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 13 RANDY GROUNDS, Defendant. 14 15 16 Lee Edward Peyton, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a civil 17 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Randy Grounds, Warden at Salinas Valley 18 State Prison, where Peyton was formerly incarcerated. The Court dismissed Peyton’s original 19 complaint with leave to amend so that he could exhaust administrative remedies. On March 10, 20 2014, Peyton filed a first amended complaint. On May 8, 2014, the Court reviewed Peyton’s first 21 amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend within twenty-one days from the date of 22 the Order. The Court notified Peyton that failure to file a second amended complaint within 23 twenty-one days would result in the dismissal of his action. 24 More than twenty-one days have passed and Peyton has not filed a second amended 25 complaint. Therefore, this action is dismissed without leave to amend but without prejudice to 26 filing a paid complaint. 27 28 CONCLUSION 1 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. Peyton’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend and without prejudice to filing a 4 paid complaint. 5 2. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 Dated: June 9, 2014 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 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?