1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMIE LEE BAKER, Case No. 3:19-cv-1156-GPC-RBM CDCR #7-30691, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION FOR FAILING vs. TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR 14 SEEKING MONETARY RELIEF

15 AGAINST IMMUNE DEFENDANT ROGER ITO, Judge; S. HARDEN, PURSUANT 16 Account Officer Specialist; B. TO

(e)(2) AND 17 SULLIVAN, Appeal Examiner; § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING TO SECRETARY OF CDCR, PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 18 Defendants. WITH COURT ORDER 19 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 20 21 Tommie Lee Baker III (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Richard J. Donovan 22 Correctional Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this 23 civil rights action pursuant to

on June 19, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 24 I. Procedural History 25 On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but 26 dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim and for seeking monetary damages 27 against immune defendants pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See 28 ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was informed of his pleading deficiencies and granted 30 days leave 1 which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. /d. at 10-11. 2 That time has since passed, but to date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not 3 asked for an extension of time in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 4 ||respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the 5 || court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 6 || Edwards v. Marin Park,

, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 7 Conclusion and Order 8 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 9 || based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted and for 10 |/seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. Clv. P. 12 ||41(b) in compliance with the Court’s July 15, 2019 Order (ECF No. 4). 13 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 14 || pursuant to

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 15 dismissal and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: September 25, 2019 2 18 Hon. athe Cate 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2