1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ANGEL LIRA, Case No. 3:19-cv-01801-MMA-AHG Booking #19737821, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT vs. TO

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

15 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE CODY HORN; BRIAN OLSON; WITH COURT ORDER 16 UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT; REQUIRING AMENDMENT 17 HANE SADAF, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Plaintiff Miguel Angel Lira, while detained at the San Diego Sheriff Department’s 22 George F. Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, California, and proceeding 23 pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

(“Compl.”) on September 24 18, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. 25 While the factual and legal basis for his claims was not clear, Lira’s Complaint 26 appeared to challenge the constitutional validity of his arrest, ongoing criminal case, the 27 deprivation of his property, and the adequacy of his public defender’s representation. See 28

at 2‒11. He sought $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

. 1 I. Procedural History 2 On December 2, 2019, the Court granted Lira’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 3 Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state claim pursuant to 28

(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. Lira was notified of his pleading 5 deficiencies, and granted 30 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them, if 6 he could. Id. at 6-10. Lira was also warned his failure to amend would result in the dismissal 7 of his case. Id. at 13 (citing Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 8 plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 9 may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”)). 10 Lira’s Amended Complaint was due on or before January 2, 2020. More than a 11 month has elapsed since that time, but to date, Lira has failed to amend, and has not 12 requested an extension of time in which to do so.1 “The failure of the plaintiff eventually 13 to respond to the court’s ultimatum–either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 14 the court that [he] will not do so–is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 15 dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park,

, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 II. Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 18 based on Lira’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant 19 to

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute as required by 20 Court’s December 2, 2019 Order requiring amendment. See also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. 21 (“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address 22

23 1 In fact, the Court’s December 2, 2019 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post 24 Office on December 18, 2019, with a notation that Lira is no longer housed at GBDF. See 25 Doc. No. 4. The Court has confirmed Lira is no longer is the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, see https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/WijList.aspx?LastName 26 =Lira&FirstName=Miguel (last accessed Feb. 19, 2020), and he has filed nothing since 27 submitting his original Complaint and IFP Motion in September 2019. The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[a] party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing 28 1 returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court ... within 60 2 || days thereafter of [his] current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice 3 || for failure to prosecute.”’). 4 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 5 || pursuant to

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 6 || dismissal and close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: February 20, 2020 MaituL lb -Loltel 9 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 on