Spatcher v. Baird

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Spatcher v. Baird

Trial Court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10

GREGORY LEON SPATCHER, Case No. 19-cv-01936-BAS (MSB) 11 CDCR #BJ-9222, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 12 Plaintiff, ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 13 v. § 1915(e)(2)(B) AND § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 NORI BAIRD; TRI CITY MEDICAL CENTER; OCEANSIDE POLICE 15 DEP’T, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Gregory Spatcher, currently housed at the California Institution for Men 19 located in Chino, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant 20 to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

on October 4, 2019. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 21 On October 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis 22 (“IFP”) but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could 23 be granted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.) 24 Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted 45 days leave in which to file 25 an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (Id. at 7–8.) 26 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before December 9, 2019. However, 27 although nearly three months have passed since the Court issued its October 24, 2019 28 Order, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, requested an extension of time in 1 || which to do so, or indicated that he intends to dismiss the action. 2 “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—eithet 3 amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 4 ||met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park,

356 F.3d 1058

5 || 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety 6 || without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief car 7 granted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B)@i) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure tc 8 || prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s October 24 9 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in gooc 10 || faith pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment 11 || of dismissal and close the file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 / □ 14 ||DATED: January 23, 2020 (pil 4 (Lyohaa. 6 Is United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Reference

Status
Unknown