Cowan v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Cowan v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD L. COWAN, II, Case No. 3:22-cv-0914-DMS-WVG Booking No. 21135745, 12

Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL vs. ACTION FOR FAILING 14 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEP’T; 15 WITH COURT ORDER GALLAGOS,

16 Defendants. 17 18 19 I. Introduction 20 On June 21, 2022, Richard L. Cowan, II (“Plaintiff” or “Cowan”), who is proceeding 21 pro se, was housed at the South Bay Detention Facility and filed a civil rights complaint 22 pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

in this Court. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil 23 filing fee required by

28 U.S.C. § 1914

(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 24 Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a). See ECF No. 2. 25 On July 21, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 26 and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(b)(1). See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days from the date of 28 the dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint. See id. at 9-10. 1 Discussion 2 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before September 6, 2022. To 3 || date, he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. 4 |The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by 5 ||amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 6 with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park,

356 F.3d 1058

, 7 || 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 Conclusion and Order 9 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 10 || Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 11 |/U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by 12 || Court’s July 21, 2022 Order. 13 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 14 || pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 15 || dismissal and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: December 9, 2022 > 18 a Yn: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 19 United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe

Reference

Status
Unknown