Anderson v. San Diego Sheriff's Office

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ANDERSON, Case No. 20cv2438-MMA-RBM Booking #20924254, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; vs. 14 [Doc. No. 2] SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S OFFICE; 15 GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION DISMISSING CLAIMS AND 16 FACILITY; A. APEZ; OFFICER 4; DEFENDANTS FOR FAILING TO MICHAEL R. BARNETT; OFFICER 17 STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO McDONALD, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) AND 18 Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 19 20 21 22 Michael Anderson (“Plaintiff”), while incarcerated at the San Diego County 23 Sheriff Department’s George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) in San Diego, 24 California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983 on December 14, 2020. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the fee 26 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he has filed a 27 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. 28 No. 2. 1 Procedural History 2 On February 4, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 3 || pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief 4 ||could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 3. 5 || Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted leave in which to file an 6 || Amended Complaint that fixed them. /d. at 10-11. 7 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before March 21, 2021. But to date, 8 || Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time 9 which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 10 ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will 11 do soHis properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. 12 || Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 15 || prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be 16 granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to 17 || prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s February 4, 18 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in 19 || good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final 20 || judgment of dismissal and close the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || DATE: May 13, 2021 Mikel! Ma Y LL 3 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28