Rivera v. Gore et al

Filing 7

ORDER: The Court Dismisses this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court 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 close the case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 05/24/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7
8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GLYNDON RIVERA,
Booking #15743971,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

9
vs.

10
11

Case No. 3:17-cv-02225-WQH-NLS

BILL GORE, Sheriff, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

GLYNDON RIVERA (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the San Diego County

14

Sheriff’s Department South Bay Detention Facility and proceeding pro se, filed this civil

15

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 31, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff

16

alleged that San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore; San Diego County Superior Court Judge

17

Dahlquist; John Doe, identified as a San Diego County “Adoptions Director”; and Teresa

18

Gomez, the mother of his son, violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights

19

during his time in custody and during criminal and parental termination proceedings. (ECF

20

No. 1 at 1-6).

21

On February 21, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

22

(“IFP”) but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was granted forty-five days to file an

24

Amended Complaint. Id. at 6-13. Plaintiff was informed that his failure to amend would

25

result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 13; see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169

26

(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his

27

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

28

the entire action.”).
1
3:17-cv-02225-WQH-NLS

1

More than three months have passed since the Court’s February 21, 2018 Order, and

2

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before April 9, 2018. The docket reflects

3

that Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint or requested an extension of time in

4

which to do so.

5

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

6

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

7

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

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

8

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice

9

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and his failure

10

to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal

11

would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the

12

Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:17-cv-02225-WQH-NLS