Hudson v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

Opinion

JEFFREY DANIEL HUDSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-0196-CAB-DEB Booking No. 21149533,

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL vs. ACTION FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S DEP’T, Defendant. I. Introduction On February 10, 2022, Jeffrey Daniel Hudson (“Plaintiff” or “Hudson”), who is proceeding pro se, was housed at the George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) and filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. On May 3, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days from the date of the dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. at 7. Discussion Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before June 18, 2022. To date, he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so.' “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending 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). Conclusion and Order Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 /U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s May 3, 2022 Order. The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file. Dated: July 8, 2022 € Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge } The Court’s May 3, 2022 Order was returned “undeliverable” and it appears that Plaintiff was released rrovide his current addres as required by the Courts eal les,