The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ALLEN EDWARDS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00010-AJB-BLM
CDCR #V-17007,
12
Plaintiff,
13 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
vs. ACTION FOR FAILING
14
TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE
DR. P. SHAKIBA, N. SCHARR, C/O
15 WITH COURT ORDER
BROWN, JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19 I. Introduction
20 On January 4, 2021, Allen Edwards (“Plaintiff” or “Edwards”), who is proceeding
21 pro se, was incarcerated at R.J. Donovan State Prison and filed a civil rights complaint
22 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil
23 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
24 Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2.
25 After initially denying Edwards in forma pauperis status, the Court granted
26 Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissed Edwards’s
27 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and granted
28
1 him sixty days from the date of the dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint as
2 to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in Count Two only. ECF No. 17.
3 On June 28, 2021, Edwards filed a First Amended Complaint in which he alleged
4 that two correctional officers, Scharr and Brown, improperly denied him special housing
5 to which he was entitled because he is a developmentally disabled inmate. FAC, ECF No.
6 22 at 3. He also claimed he was injured as a result of Scharr and Brown moving him into
7 general population. Id.
8 On July 27, 2021, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28
9 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and gave Edwards sixty days from the
10 date of the dismissal Order to file a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 23.
11 II. Discussion
12 Edwards’s Second Amended Complaint was due on or before September 27, 2021.
13 To date, he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do
14 so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by
15 amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so–is properly
16 met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058,
17 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).
18 III. Conclusion and Order
19 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on
20 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28
21 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by
22 Court’s July 27, 2021 Order.
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith
2 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of
3 || dismissal and close the file.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 || Dated: October 7, 2021
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 one