Opinion

Mourning v. Office of the Attorney General

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Sep 14, 2020
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JEFFREY LEE MOURNING, Case No. 3:20-cv-00804-AJB-JLB

CDCR# BK-7383,

12

ORDER:

Plaintiff,

13

vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

14

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

15 AND FOR SEEKING MONETARY

GENERAL; ERIC A. SWENSON;

DAMAGES AGAINST IMMUNE

16 ALLEN BROWN,

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO

17 Defendants. § 1915A(b); AND

18

(2) DISMISSING FOR FAILING

19 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE

WITH COURT ORDER

20

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

21

22

23

24 I. Procedural Background

25 Plaintiff Jefferey Lee Mourning, currently incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison in

26 Blythe, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil action filed on April 27, 2020, pursuant

27 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff did not file a motion to proceed

28 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and instead remitted the $400

1 || filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action. See ECF No. 1,

2 || Receipt No. CAS120979.

3 On May 14, 2020, the Court dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim

4 ||upon which relief could be granted and for seeking monetary damages against immune

5 ||defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff was advised of

6 || his pleading deficiencies and was granted until June 15, 2020 to file an amended pleading.

7 || dd.)

8 As stated above, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before June 15, 2020.

9 ||But to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an

10 extension of time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to

11 court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that

12 || [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards

13 || v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

14 |/II. Conclusion and Order

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

16 || based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for

17 ||seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b),

18 || and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s

19 14, 2020 Order.

20 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith

21 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of

22 dismissal and close the file.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

25 ||Dated: September 14, 2020 © □□

26 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia

27 United States District Judge

28

2 oo

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.