Rasuwl v. Hays ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALMALIK RASUWL, Case No. 3:19-cv-01832-MMA-WVG CDCR #BK-0601, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE vs. A CLAIM PURSUANT 14 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND MARK HAYS; FRANK CLAMSER; 15 § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING APRIL SIPPERLEY; JUSTIN WHITE, TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 16 Defendants. WITH COURT ORDER 17 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 18 19 20 Plaintiff Almalik Rasuwl, currently housed at Valley State Prison located in 21 Chowchilla, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. 23 I. Procedural History 24 On October 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 25 pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief 26 could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 6. 27 Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to 28 file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. at 6-10. 1 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before December 16, 2019 and 2 ||nearly three months have passed since the Court issued its October 29, 2019 Order. But 3 || to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension 4 time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the 5 ||court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that 6 || [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 7 || Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 Conclusion and Order 9 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 10 || prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be 11 || granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to 12 || prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s October 29, 13 Order. 14 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 15 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 16 || dismissal and close the file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATE: January 24, 2020 Mfesick: - hill 19 HO . MICHAEL M. NELLO United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ee