1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DION SCOTT BUCKELEW, Case No.: 23-cv-83-MMA-JLB CDCR #BS-1324, 12 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. 14 CAPTAIN DARNELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff Dion Scott Buckelew, a state prisoner proceeding 19 pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to

, along with a motion to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. Nos. 1–2. Plaintiff alleged that while in the custody of 21 the San Diego County Sheriff from February 2020 until March 2022, he was subjected to 22 the excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, unconstitutional 23 conditions of confinement, denial of due process, loss of personal and legal property, and 24 denial of access to the courts. Doc. No. 1 at 2-10. After the Court denied his in forma 25 pauperis motion, Plaintiff paid the filing fee. Doc. Nos. 3–4. 26 On February 27, 2023, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a 27 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff was notified of the 28 deficiencies of his pleading and granted leave to amend. Id. at 3–19. On April 3, 2023, | || Plaintiff timely filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Doc. No. 6. The FAC 2 ||renamed nine of the twelve Defendants from the original Complaint, added a retaliation 3 claim, and realleged all claims presented in the original Complaint except the loss of 4 || property and access to courts claims. Jd. 5 On April 21, 2023, the Court dismissed the FAC for failure to state a claim 6 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Doc. No. 7. Plaintiff was once again notified of the 7 || deficiencies of his pleading and granted leave to amend. /d. at 4-13. On June 13, 2023, 8 ||the Court granted Plaintiff's request for a 60-day extension of time to amend, and the 9 || Second Amended Complaint was due on or before August 14, 2023. Doc. No. 9. 10 On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Court’s Orders screening his 11 |}complaints, contending that in applying the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 12 Court held him to a heightened pleading standard applicable to attorneys but 13 |}inapplicable to pro se litigants such as himself. Doc. No. 10. On July 25, 2023, the Court 14 |/ overruled Plaintiff's objections and reminded him that his Second Amended Complaint 15 || was due on August 14, 2023. Doc. No. 11. Plaintiff constructively filed a notice of 16 || appeal on August 14, 2023, Doc. No. 12, but has not filed a Second Amended Complaint. 17 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice based both on 18 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 || § 1915A(b) and his failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring 20 |}amendment. See Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (‘If a plaintiff 21 || does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may 22 convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.’’) 23 The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 23, 2023 26 BMiidel M —{ hillr 27 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 28 United States District Judge 2 oe