Sconce v. Paramo et al

Filing 13

ORDER dismissing civil action without prejudice for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) and for failing to prosecute in compliance with Court Order requiring Amendment. The Court further certifies that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 12/21/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DAVID W. SCONCE, CDCR #AP-3966, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 15 Case No. 3:17-cv-00187-JAH-AGS D. PARAMO, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 I. Procedural History DAVID W. SCONCE (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 21 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil 22 rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time he filed his Complaint, 23 Plaintiff did not prepay the $400 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he 24 filed a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 25 (ECF No. 2). 26 On June 21, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, conducted its 27 mandatory initial screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and dismissed it sua sponte for 28 failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) (ECF No. 9). 1 3:17-cv-00187-JAH-AGS 1 The Court also granted Plaintiff 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint 2 that addressed the deficiencies of pleading it identified. (Id.). See also Lopez v. Smith, 3 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[A] district court should grant leave 4 to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that 5 the pleading could not possibly be cured.”) (citations omitted). 6 On October 10, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, 7 and gave him until November 20, 2017, to file an Amended Complaint in compliance 8 with the Court’s June 21, 2017 Order (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff was expressly cautioned 9 that his failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 3) (citing Lira v. 10 Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of 11 the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 12 complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)). 13 Almost six months have passed since the Court’s June 21, 2017 Order, and 14 Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint despite having been granted an 15 extension of time in which to do so. On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff was clearly informed 16 that his Amended Complaint must be filed by November 20, 2017. But to date, Plaintiff 17 has failed to amend, and he has not requested any additional requests for an extension of 18 time. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by 19 amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly 20 met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 21 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 II. 23 Conclusion and Order Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 24 prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be 25 granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to 26 prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s June 21, 2017 27 and October 10, 2017 Orders. See ECF Nos. 9, 12. 28 /// 2 3:17-cv-00187-JAH-AGS 1 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good 2 faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 3 judgment of dismissal and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: December 21, 2017 7 __________________________________ 8 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:17-cv-00187-JAH-AGS

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?