Cartee v. Imperial County Sheriff Department

Filing 9

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. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 7/27/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TREVOR DANIEL CARTEE,
Booking #17-7267,
vs.

14

16

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

15

Case No. 3:18-cv-00327-CAB-AGS

IMPERIAL COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,

17

Defendant.

18
19

TREVOR DANIEL CARTEE (“Plaintiff”), while detained at the Imperial County

20

Jail in El Centro, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint

21

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 9, 2018, followed by two ex parte documents

22

in which he objected to various aspects of his pending criminal proceedings in Imperial

23

County Superior Court. See ECF Nos. 1, 3, 7. His pleadings sought “release from [his]

24

illegal detention,” and this Court’s intervention in the “injustice” he claims to have faced

25

in Imperial County. See ECF No. 7 at 6, 7.

26

I.

27
28

Procedural History
On May 29, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28
1
3:18-cv-00327-CAB-AGS

1

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was informed of his

2

pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint

3

that fixed them. Id. at 6-11. Further, Plaintiff was cautioned his failure to amend would

4

result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 10-11, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164,

5

1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his

6

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

7

the entire action.”)).

8

Almost two months have passed since the Court’s May 29, 2018 Order, and

9

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before July 13, 2018. But to date, Plaintiff

10

has failed to amend, and has not asked for an extension of time in which to do so. “The

11

failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending

12

the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with

13

the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065

14

(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 May 29, 2018

20

Order (ECF No. 8).

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
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2018

26
27
28
2
3:18-cv-00327-CAB-AGS