Rojas v. Johnson et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing civil action without prejudice for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e) 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 USC 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 12/05/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

CESAR ARMANDO ROJAS,
CDCR #BA-4157,

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,

11
vs.

12
13

Case No. 3:17-cv-01287-JAH-JMA

RASHAD JOHNSON, Probation Officer,
et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

CESAR ARMANDO ROJAS (“Plaintiff”), while incarcerated at Mule Creek State

18

Prison in Ione, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

19

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1).

20

In his Complaint, Plaintiff claimed a San Diego County probation officer, his

21

unnamed “transferring partner,” a San Diego County Deputy Sheriff, the University of

22

California San Diego Emergency Room, and an unidentified emergency medical

23

technician violated his Eighth Amendment rights on December 22, 2014. (ECF No. 1 at

24

3-5.) Plaintiff sought to enjoin Defendants from “bothering” him, and requested more

25

than $19 million in general and punitive damages. (Id. at 7.)

26

I.

Procedural History

27

On September 25, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma

28

pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
1
3:17-cv-01287-JAH-JMA

1

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was

2

informed of his various pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to file

3

an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 6-9.) Plaintiff was further cautioned that

4

his failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at 9) (citing Lira v.

5

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of

6

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

7

complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)).

8

More than two months have passed since the Court’s September 25, 2017 Order,

9

and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before November 9, 2017. But to date,

10

Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of

11

time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s

12

ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will

13

not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin

14

Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

15

II.

16

Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without

17

prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be

18

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to

19

prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s September 25,

20

2017 Order (ECF No. 5).

21

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

22

faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final

23

judgment of dismissal and close the file.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: 12/5/2017

______________________________________
HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge
2
3:17-cv-01287-JAH-JMA