Fletcher v. Quin et al
ORDER Dismissing With Prejudice Defendants Quinn and Galvin. More than sixty days have elapsed since the Court's March 3, 2017 Order. If plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/11/17.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGORY L. FLETCHER,
Case No.: 3:15-cv-02156-GPC-WVG
ORDER DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS QUINN
C/O QUIN; C/O LOPEZ; SERGEANT
STRICLAND; C/O ROMERO; C/O
GALVAN; C/O GRISSON; C/O
SORRANNO; CAPTAIN SANCHEZ,
On September 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against a number of prison
officials employed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego,
California.1 Dkt. No. 1. On October 26, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees. Dkt. No. 4. On December 8, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), and on December 28, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 6 & 8. The Court granted
The FAC identifies these individuals as C/O Quin[n], Romero, Galvan, Sorrano, Grisson, Lopez,
Captain Sanchez and Sgt. Stricklin/Stricland.
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the U.S. Marshal to effect
service on Plaintiff’s behalf. Dkt. No. 11.
The FAC alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s (1) Eighth Amendment right
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and (2) First Amendment rights to freedom
of association, free speech, and freedom of religion. FAC, Dkt. No. 6. On June 20, 2016,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Defendants Galvan and Quinn. Dkt. No. 22.
On March 3, 2017, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Galvan and Quinn
from the FAC with leave to amend. The Court gave Plaintiff sixty (60) days from the
date of the order to amend his allegations against Defendants Galvan and Quinn.
Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint against Defendants Galvan and
Quinn within the time frame ordered by the Court. More than sixty days have elapsed
since the Court’s March 3, 2017 Order. Accordingly, this Court hereby DISMISSES
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Galvan and Quinn with prejudice. See Lira v.
Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of
the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2017
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?