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)

Download PDF
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

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?