Cruz v. San Diego County CWS

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Leila Cruz, Case No.: 3:23-CV-0957-GPC-KSC

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE 14 San Diego County CWS, Lynette Miller, A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO Christopher Hines, 15 PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Defendants. WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING 16 AMENDMENT 17

18 Plaintiff Leila Cruz (“Plaintiff” or “Cruz”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 19 against Defendants San Diego County CWS, Lynette Miller, and Christopher Hines in the 20 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 4, 2023. (ECF 21 No. 1, Compl.) On May 24, 2023, the District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri 22 transferred the action to this Court to cure the defect in venue. (ECF No. 3 at 7–8.1) Cruz 23 also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 2), which was 24 25 26 1 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 27 1 1 || provisionally granted by the Eastern District of Missouri and subject to modification by 2 Court. (ECF No. 3 at 8.) On August 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to 3 || proceed in forma pauperis, sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim 4 || with leave to amend, denied her motion to appoint counsel; and denied her “motion to add 5 ||claims for relief.” (ECF No. 10.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 6 || complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order no later than September 7 2023. Ud.) Over one month has passed since the Court’s dismissal order, and to date, 8 || Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor sought an extension of time to file one.” 9 || Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to 10 |}amend based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and her 11 |/failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Edwards y. 12 || Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually 13 || to respond to the court’s ultimatum—ceither by amending the complaint or indicating to the 14 ||court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 15 || dismissal.”’); Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not 16 advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 17 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). The Court DIRECTS the 18 || Clerk of Court to enter final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 15, 2023 <=

22 United States District Judge 23 || —___ > The Court notes that its order was returned as undeliverable on September 11, 2023. (ECF. No. 11.) A 25 || pro se litigant must keep the court advised as to her current address within 60 days or else the Court may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. See S.D. Civ. Local R. 83.11. Here, Plaintiff has failed to 26 || inform the Court of her current address and is another basis for dismissal. 27 28 3:23-CV-0957-GPC-KSC