Johnson v. Dept. Veteran Affairs

Filing 7

ORDER Confirming Dismissal of Civil Action for Petitioner's Failure to (1) File an Amended Petition and to (2) Pay Filing Fee or Properly Move to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (re ECF 6 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/12/17.(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 Rwayne Johnson, Case No.: 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Petitioner, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER CONFIRMING DISMISSAL OF CIVIL ACTION FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO (1) FILE AN AMENDED PETITION AND TO (2) PAY FILING FEE OR PROPERLY MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. 15 16 17 [ECF No. 6.] 18 19 20 On January 12, 2017, Petitioner Rwayne Johnson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,1 initiated this action against the Department of Veterans Affairs 21 (“Respondent”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma 22 pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for court-appointed counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.) On April 23 19, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on account 24 of Petitioner’s failure to submit a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement 25 26 27 28 1 On the Civil Cover Sheet submitted with his Complaint, Petitioner indicated that the nature of his suit is a “prisoner petition.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Petitioner’s return address is the same as the William P. Clements Prison located in Amarillo, Texas. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) 1 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC 1 or any other information about his financial status, dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for 2 Writ of Mandamus for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 3 and denied as moot Petitioner’s request for court-appointed counsel.2 (Dkt. No. 4.) Out 4 of an abundance of caution, the Court granted Petitioner forty-five days to re-open the 5 case by (1) filing an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus which cured all of the 6 deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court and by (2) paying the appropriate filing 7 fee or applying to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the requirements of 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (Id.) Petitioner was warned that failure to file an Amended Petition 9 for Writ of Mandamus within the time provided would result in a final Order dismissing 10 this civil action based both on Petitioner’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can 11 be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to 12 prosecute in compliance with a Court order requiring amendment. (Id. at 6 (citing Lira v. 13 Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of 14 the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 15 complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”)).) 16 Petitioner subsequently filed, nunc pro tunc to June 8, 2017, what appears to be a 17 motion and a proposed order dismissing the instant case for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. 18 No. 6.) It is unclear what Petitioner seeks to accomplish by way of this filing. In any 19 event, Petitioner’s latest filing contains scattered, incomplete citations to inapposite case 20 law and does not address in any fashion the concerns laid out in the Court’s April 19, 21 2017 Order. Petitioner has failed to pay the appropriate filing fee or properly move to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. Nor has Plaintiff submitted any allegations tending to show 23 why he is entitled to any form of relief, much less the issuance of a writ of mandamus. 24 Indeed, Plaintiff’s latest filing contains no factual allegations at all and is devoid of any 25 26 27 28 The Court also noted that to the extent Petitioner wishes to appeal a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision regarding his service-connected benefits, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review such decisions. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). 2 2 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC 1 reference to the relief initially sought. See S.D. Cal. Civ. LR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, 2 Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 3 pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 4 2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 5 amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”). 6 Accordingly, the Court CONFIRMS the dismissal of this civil action for 7 Petitioner’s failure to file an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus, failure to state a 8 claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and failure 9 to pay the requisite filing fee or satisfy the requirements to proceed in forma pauperis. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2017 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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?