1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:19-cv-02051-BAS-BGS CESAR SANTAMARIA MUNIZ, 12 CDCR # AA-4341, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 13 ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE Plaintiff, A CLAIM AND FAILING TO 14 v. PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 15 WITH COURT ORDER D. PARAMO and J. CUEVAS, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Cesar Santamaria Muniz, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison in 19 Soledad, California, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to

20 alleging that during prison disciplinary proceedings that occurred while Plaintiff was 21 housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, Warden 22 D. Paramo and Lieutenant J. Cuevas (collectively, “Defendants”) violated his Fifth and 23 Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See “Compl.,” ECF No. 1.) 24 I. Procedural History 25 On December 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 26 pauperis but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could 27 be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). (See ECF 1 ||No. 3, at 13-14.) The Court advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his Complaint and 2 || granted him 45 days leave in which to file an amended complaint that fixed them. (See

3 14.) He was cautioned: “[i]f Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint on or before 4 || February 13, 2020, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based 5 on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted... and his 6 || failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment.” (/d. at 14 7 \\(citing Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take 8 || advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal 9 || of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.’’))). 10 More than two months have passed since February 13, 2020 and Plaintiff has not 11 || filed an amended complaint or requested an extension of time in which to do so. “The 12 || failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending 13 ||the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will do so—is properly met with the 14 ||sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park,

, 1065 (9th 15 |) Cir. 2004). 16 Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 18 || based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which Section 1983 relief may be granted 19 || pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(i1) and Section 1915A(b)(1), and his failure 20 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) in compliance with the 21 ||Court’s December 30, 2019 Order. 22 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 23 || pursuant to

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment 24 || of dismissal and close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: April 20, 2020 / yy (yitlug (Aaphan 6 United States District Judge