1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIONICIO SOLORIO, Case No. 3:19-cv-02193-JAH-MDD CDCR #AN-6346, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT vs. TO

(e)(2) AND 14 § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING

15 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE C/O JOHN DOE (1), Correctional Officer; WITH COURT ORDER 16 C/O JOHN DOE (2), Correctional Officer; REQUIRING AMENDMENT 17 W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Dionicio Solorio, while incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (“CAL”), 21 and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

(“Compl.”) 22 on November 18, 2019, alleging that two unidentified CAL Correctional Officers used 23 unreasonable force when breaking up a 2016 fight between two of his fellow inmates, and 24 that Warden Montgomery failed to adequately train those Officers. See Compl., ECF No. 25 1, at 3-5. 26 I. Procedural History 27 On January 21, 2020, the Court granted Solorio’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 28 Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state claim pursuant to 28

(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 4. Solorio was notified of his pleading 2 || deficiencies, and he was granted 45 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed 3 them, if he could. Jd. at 4-7. Solorio was also warned his failure to amend would result in 4 ||the dismissal of his case. Id. at 8-9 (citing Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 5 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a 6 || district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire 7 || action.’’)). 8 Solorio’s Amended Complaint was due on or before March 6, 2020, and three 9 ||months have passed since the Court issued its January 21, 2020 Order. But to date, Solorio 10 failed to file an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time in 11 || which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum— 12 || either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is 13 properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356

(9th Cir. 2004). 15 Conclusion and Order 16 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 17 ||Solorio’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R.

(6) in compliance with the Court’s January 21, 2020 Order. The Clerk is 20 || DIRECTED to enter a final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: April 20, 2020 24 Ho . John A. Houston . 5 Upited States District Judge 26 27 28 2