Case Information
*1 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAUL DAVID HAAG, Case No. 3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB CDCR #BJ-0331, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE vs. A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND SAN DIEGO SHERIFF DEP’T; LVN § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING #6131, Registered Nurse; LVN #6222, TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Registered Nurse; LVN #6977, Registered WITH COURT ORDER Nurse; LVN #7403, Registered Nurse, REQUIRING AMENDMENT
Defendants.
Paul David Haag (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the California Medical Facility located in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 2, 2019. ( See Compl., ECF No. 1.) I. Procedural History
On September 23, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). ( See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. ( Id. at 5-9.)
[1]
3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB *2 1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before November 7, 2019 and nearly four months have passed since the Court issued its September 23, 2019 Order. But to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park , 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).
II. Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s September 23, 2019 Order.
The Court further 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 file.
IT IS SO ORDERED .
Dated: January 17, 2020
[2]
3:19-cv-01460-AJB-MSB