Sanchez v. George Bailey Jail

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 6/5/2024. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (maq)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOSUE ISREAL SANCHEZ,
CDCR #BC-0031,

15

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 24cv0134-AJB (LR)

vs.
GEORGE BAILEY JAIL,
Defendant.

16
17
18

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff Josue Israel Sanchez, a state prisoner incarcerated at

19

Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied by a Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos.

21

1-2.) Plaintiff claimed his due process rights were violated when his legal materials were

22

destroyed during a transfer to the George Bailey Jail in San Diego, California. (ECF No.

23

1 at 3.)

24

On February 14, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and

25

dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief

26

may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (ECF No. 3.) The

27

Court found the Complaint failed to state a federal due process claim because Plaintiff had

28

an adequate state post-deprivation remedy for the loss of property, failed to state an access
1

24cv0134-AJB (LR)

1

to courts claim because it failed to allege an actual injury arising from the loss of legal

2

materials, and failed to name a proper Defendant. (Id. at 4-6.) Plaintiff was granted leave

3

to amend on or before April 1, 2024, and specifically instructed that if he failed to file an

4

Amended Complaint within the time provided the Court will enter a final Order dismissing

5

this civil action based both on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

6

granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute in compliance

7

with a court order requiring amendment. (Id. at 7-8, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164,

8

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

9

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

10

entire action.”) On March 20, 2024, the Court extended the time to amend on Plaintiff’s

11

motion until May 1, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended

12

Complaint.

13
14
15
16

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk of
Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2024

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

24cv0134-AJB (LR)