United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2021

Mondragon v. County of San Diego

Mondragon v. County of San Diego
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided February 2, 2021
Mondragon v. County of San Diego

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LOPEZ MONDRAGON, Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG Booking No. 20921587,

ORDER:

Plaintiff, vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) GORE; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES; S.D.

AND § 1915A(b); AND

COUNTY MEDICAL PROVIDERS,

Defendants. (2) DISMISSING FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Jose Lopez Mondragon (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Vista Detention Facility, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 13, 2020. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural History

On August 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. (/d. at 7-8.)

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before October 26, 2020. But to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 26, 2020 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2021 ns my. L4\

Hon. Dana M. Sabraw

United States District Judge

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.