Fletcher v. Quin et al

Filing 29

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY L. FLETCHER,

Case No.: 3:15-cv-02156-GPC-WVG
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING WITH
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS QUINN
AND GALVAN

C/O QUIN; C/O LOPEZ; SERGEANT
STRICLAND; C/O ROMERO; C/O
GALVAN; C/O GRISSON; C/O
SORRANNO; CAPTAIN SANCHEZ,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18
19

On September 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against a number of prison

20

officials employed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego,

21

California.1 Dkt. No. 1. On October 26, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint

22

without prejudice for failure to pay filing fees. Dkt. No. 4. On December 8, 2015,

23

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”), and on December 28, 2015, Plaintiff

24

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 6 & 8. The Court granted

25
26
27
1

28

The FAC identifies these individuals as C/O Quin[n], Romero, Galvan, Sorrano, Grisson, Lopez,
Captain Sanchez and Sgt. Stricklin/Stricland.
1
3:15-cv-02156-GPC-WVG

1

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the U.S. Marshal to effect

2

service on Plaintiff’s behalf. Dkt. No. 11.

3

The FAC alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s (1) Eighth Amendment right

4

to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and (2) First Amendment rights to freedom

5

of association, free speech, and freedom of religion. FAC, Dkt. No. 6. On June 20, 2016,

6

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Defendants Galvan and Quinn. Dkt. No. 22.

7

On March 3, 2017, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Galvan and Quinn

8

from the FAC with leave to amend. The Court gave Plaintiff sixty (60) days from the

9

date of the order to amend his allegations against Defendants Galvan and Quinn.

10

Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint against Defendants Galvan and

11

Quinn within the time frame ordered by the Court. More than sixty days have elapsed

12

since the Court’s March 3, 2017 Order. Accordingly, this Court hereby DISMISSES

13

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Galvan and Quinn with prejudice. See Lira v.

14

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of

15

the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the

16

complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:15-cv-02156-GPC-WVG