Riskas v. San Diego, County of et al
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 Prosecute in Compliance with Court Order Requiring Amendment. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 6/12/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DOUGLAS LYNN RISKAS,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02317-CAB-BLM
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 PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH COURT ORDER
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
DOUGLAS LYNN RISKAS (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, and incarcerated at the
California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged the County of San Diego,
San Diego County Sheriff William Gore, and 50 unidentified deputies at George Bailey
Detention Facility failed to protect him from assault, and failed to provide him adequate
medical care while he was a pretrial detainee there in late 2015 and early 2016. (ECF No.
1 at 9-23.)
On February 10, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff
was informed of his various pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to
file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at 5-14.) Indeed, the Clerk of Court provided him a blank
copy of the Court’s form § 1983 Complaint for his use in amending. (Id. at 14.)
Almost four months have passed since the Court’s February 10, 2017 Order. But
Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, nor has he requested an extension of time
in which to do so.
“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 a dismissal of the entire
action.” Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). “The failure of the plaintiff
eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by
indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule
41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice
based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s February 10, 2017 Order (ECF No.
The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of
dismissal and to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 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?