Castro v. Gipson

Opinion

DENNIS CASTRO, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0789-DMS-DEB CDCR #V33841, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE vs. A CLAIM AND FAILING TO PROSECUTE

CONNIE GIPSON, J. HILL, AMADOR, SURKHI, M. VILORIA, GONZALEZ, J. MOECKLY, H. MOSELEY, W. SMITH, Defendant. On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff Dennis Castro, a prisoner confined R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. After the Court initially dismissed the action for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and the case was reopened. On September 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion and sua sponte dismissed the Complaint in its entirety for failure comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. In the same order, the Court informed Plaintiff of the pleading deficiencies of his complaint and the granted him leave amended it within 45 days. Id. at 6–14. Plaintiff was informed that if he failed to timely amend, the Court would enter a final judgment of dismissal based on his failure to state a claim and his failure to prosecute in compliance with the court order requiring amendment. Jd. at 14 (citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, A || 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”)). The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order has long passed and the Court has received no communication from Plaintiff. The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004): Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order): see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with the federal or court order). The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to prosecute this action. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. Dated: March 24, 2025 =n Yn: LAN Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 2