Coyle v. San Diego Sheriff's Dept., et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Action for Failing to State a Claim and for Failing to Comply with Court Order Requiring Amendment. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or requested any extension of time in which to do so. Therefore, the Court dis misses this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend. The Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 9/26/16.(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
12

JUSTIN COYLE,
Booking #15746082,
Patient #170-207-5,

13
14
15
16

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00667-GPC-JLB
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILING TO
STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND
§ 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING
TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER REQUIRING
AMENDMENT

Plaintiff,
vs.
SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiff, Justin Coyle, was formerly detained at George Bailey Detention Facility

20

in San Diego, but has since been transferred to Patton State Hospital (ECF No. 4). He has

21

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but his complaint was dismissed with

22

leave to amend because it failed to state a claim. Because Plaintiff has not filed an

23

amended complaint, the Court now dismisses his case.

24
25

Background
On June 28, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it in its

26

entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff was

27

provided an explanation of his pleading deficiencies, and granted an opportunity to fix

28

them. See id. at 5-12. Plaintiff was given 45 days, or until approximately August 12,
1
3:16-cv-00667-GPC-JLB

1

2016, to file his amended complaint, and warned that if he failed to do so, his case would

2

be dismissed without further leave to amend. (Id. at 12, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d

3

1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to

4

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

5

dismissal of the entire action.”)).

6

“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either

7

by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so–is properly

8

met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058,

9

1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

10
11

Conclusion
The time for amendment has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended

12

complaint, or requested any extension of time in which to do so. Therefore, the Court

13

dismisses this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on

14

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28

15

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to

16

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s June 28, 2016 Order.

17

The Court further certifies that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and directs the Clerk to enter a final judgment of

19

dismissal and to close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: September 26, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-00667-GPC-JLB