Jones v. Motel 6

Opinion

MARIO Q. JONES, Case No. 3:19-cv-01831-AJB-MDD Booking #19750426, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, vs. TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE MOTEL 6: D’ANGELO’S TOWING; WITH COURT ORDER DAISEY BALBUERA, Motel 6 Clerk; REQUIRING AMENDMENT OFFICER JOHN McGOUGH, National City Police, Defendants. Plaintiff Mario Q. Jones, while detained at the San Diego County Jail in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Compl.”) on September 23, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1. While the factual and legal basis for his claims was not clear, Jones’s Complaint sought the recovery of a $100 deposit he made to the Motel 6 clerk in National City on July 12, 2019, and $510,000 in general and punitive damages from a private towing company and the National City Police Officer who arrested him for trespassing. See id. at 3‒4, 6‒7, 10. I. Procedural History On December 9, 2019, the Court granted Jones’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 3. Jones was notified of his pleading deficiencies and granted 45 days leave to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them, if he could. Id. at 5-10. Jones was also warned his failure to amend would result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 10 (citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 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 a dismissal of the entire action.”)). Jones’s Amended Complaint was due on or before January 23, 2020. More than a month has elapsed since that time, but to date, Jones has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so.1 “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). II. Conclusion and Order Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice based on Jones’s failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute as required by Court’s December 9, 2019 Order requiring amendment. See also S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11.b. (“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address

1 In fact, the Court’s December 9, 2019 Order was returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office on December 23, 2019. See ECF No. 4. The Court has since confirmed Jones is no longer in the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, see https://apps. sdsheriff.net/wij/WijList.aspx?LastName=Jones&FirstName=Mario (last accessed Feb. 24, 2020), and he has filed nothing since submitting his original Complaint and IFP Motion in September 2019. The Local Rules of this Court provide that “[a] party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current address.” See S.D. Cal. is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court ... within 60 days thereafter of [his] current address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.’’). 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: February 24, 2020 © Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia United States District Judge 3