1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON ANDRE BRYANT, Case No.: 25-cv-0724-AJB (KSC) CDCR #BV-8320, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 vs. 14 (1) DENYING SECOND MOTION TO PROCEED IFP AS MOOT; and 15 WARDEN GUZMAN, CHIEF DEPUTY (2) DISMISSING ACTION FOR 16 WARDEN ESQUIEL, CAPTAIN FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND HOPPER and PLANT OPERATOR 17 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BEATTY, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff Shannon Andre Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro 22 se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to

, along with a Motion to 23 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Plaintiff alleged that while playing 24 basketball at Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California, he stepped on a crack and 25 sprained his ankle due to the Defendants’ negligent maintenance of the basketball court. 26 (See ECF No. 1 at 3.) 27 On April 10, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and screened the 28 Complaint pursuant to

(e)(2) & 1915A(b), which require sua sponte 1 dismissal of a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, 2 fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. (ECF No. 7.) 3 The Court found the Complaint failed to state a claim because Plaintiff’s claim relied solely 4 on negligence. (ECF No. 5 at 4-5 citing Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994) 5 (holding that the constitutional standard for failure to protect a prisoner from unsafe 6 conditions “describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “more than 7 ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.”)) Plaintiff was instructed 8 that if he wished to proceed with a

claim based on his ankle sprain, he 9 must set forth facts which plausibly allege a Defendant was aware of facts from which they 10 could draw an inference that the condition of the basketball court posed a substantial risk 11 of serious injury to Plaintiff and actually drew such an inference, as opposed to simply 12 alleging the basketball court was negligently maintained, and set forth facts showing he 13 suffered a sufficiently serious injury as the result of a prison official’s deliberate 14 indifference to a substantial risk of serious physical harm. (Id.) To the extent Plaintiff 15 sought to bring a negligence claim under state law, the Court declined to exercise 16 supplemental jurisdiction. (Id. at 5.) 17 Although it appeared unlikely Plaintiff would be able to amend his Complaint to 18 state a claim, because he is proceeding pro se, the Court granted an opportunity to amend 19 on or before May 26, 2025. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was also informed that if he failed to file 20 an amended complaint within the time provided the Court would enter a final Order 21 dismissing this civil action based both on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which 22 relief can be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1), and failure 23 to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. (Id., citing Lira v. 24 Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of 25 the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 26 complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”)) On or about the same day the Court issued 27 that Order, Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed IFP, which is moot since he is already 28 proceeding IFP. (ECF No. 6.) 1 As of the date of this Order Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he 2 ||contacted the Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's second motion 3 ||to proceed IFP (ECF No. 6) and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to 4 ||state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) 5 || & 1915A(b)(1), and for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment 6 || accordingly and close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 10, 2025 □

10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee