1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL D. RICHARDSON, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02435-DMS-JLB Booking #19731938, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION PURSUANT TO v.

(e)(2) AND 14 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) AND FOR SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S OFFICE; 15 FAILING TO PROSECUTE GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION; IN COMPLIANCE WITH 16 A. APEZ, Deputy/Corrections (SDSO); COURT ORDER OFFICER H., Deputy/Corrections 17 (SDSO); CREW SHIFT, 18 Deputy/Corrections (SDSO), 19 Defendants. 20 21 On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel D. Richardson, incarcerated at the County 22 of San Diego Sheriff Department’s George F. Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”), and 23 proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to

. See 24 Compl., ECF No. 1. While short on specifics, Richardson’s Complaint named the County 25 Sheriff’s Office, GBDF, two Sheriff’s Department deputies, and an entire “Crew Shift” 26 as Defendants, and alleged they committed acts of racial discrimination and medical 27 malpractice.

at 2‒5. Richardson sought injunctive relief related to his criminal case, as 28 well as $53,000 in both general and punitive damages.

. 1 Richardson also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

(a). See ECF No. 2. 3 I. Procedural History 4 On March 15, 2021, the Court granted Richardson permission to proceed IFP, but 5 dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 4. Richardson was notified of his pleading 7 deficiencies, and was ordered to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them within 60 8 days. Id. at 5‒10. Richardson was also warned his failure to amend would result in 9 dismissal. Id. at 10‒11, citing Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a 10 plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court 11 may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”). 12 Richardson has not filed an Amended Complaint, more than three months have 13 passed since the Court issued its March 15, 2021 Order, and he has not filed a request for 14 an extension of time in which to amend. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 15 respond to the court’s ultimatum‒‒either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 16 the court that [he] will not do so‒‒is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 17 dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park,

, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 II. Conclusion and Order 19 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 20 Richardson’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 21

(e)(2) and § 1915A, and his failure to prosecute as required by the 22 Court’s March 15, 2021 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would 23 not be taken in good faith pursuant to

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to 24 enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 22, 2021 ___________________________________ 27 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 28