Vaught IV v. Oppedisano

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Vaught IV v. Oppedisano

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELBERT LEE VAUGHT IV, Case No. 3:20-cv-1500-MMA-RBB CDCR #H-56089, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14 FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM ALBERT OPPEDISANO; JOHN DOE; 15 PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2) CHRISTOPHER HOEFT; GEORGE AND § 1915A(b); AND 16 BAKERJIAN,

17 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 18 WITH COURT ORDER 19 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff Elbert Lee Vaught IV, while housed at the Richard J. Donovan 24 Correctional Facility, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

25 U.S.C. § 1983

on August 4, 2020. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. 26 I. Procedural History 27 On September 30, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief 1 could be granted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 7. 2 || Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted leave in which to file an 3 || Amended Complaint that fixed them. /d. at 11-12. 4 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before November 30, 2020. But to 5 || date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of 6 in which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 7 || ultimatum-either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will 8 ||not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. 9 || Marin Park,

356 F.3d 1058

, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 Conclusion and Order 11 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 12 || prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be 13 granted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to 14 || prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s September 30, 15 || 2020 Order. 16 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 17 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 18 dismissal and close the file. 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 || DATE: January 22, 2021 ah TM = Ls 21 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Reference

Status
Unknown