Quinn v. Pollard

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GREGORY W. QUINN, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1494-JES-SBC CDCR #P-28271, 9 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 10 ACTION FOR FAILING vs. TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE 11 WITH COURT ORDER MARCUS POLLARD, Warden; 12 RICO MATTHEWS, Correctional 13 Officer; F. LEWIS, Correctional Officer, 14 Defendants. 15 16

17 18 I. Introduction 19 On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff Gregory W. Quinn, a prisoner currently incarcerated 20 at California State Prison – Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) located in Lancaster, 21 California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 23 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2. 25 On September 1, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma 26 Pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See ECF No. 3 at 8-9. Plaintiff was granted forty-five (45) days 28 from the date of the dismissal Order to file a First Amended Complaint. Id. at 9. l II. Discussion 2 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was due on or before October 15, 2023. To 3 || date, he has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do 4 ||so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by 5 amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly 6 || met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 7 111065 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 HI. Conclusion and Order 9 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on 10 || Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 11 |/U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi1) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by 12 || Court’s September 1, 2023 Order. 13 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 14 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 15 || dismissal and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ig Dated: December 1, 2023 “4 a — 4, 19 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 0 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ee □□