Rasuwl v. Hays

District Court, S.D. California·Decided January 24, 2020·No. 3:19-cv-01832·Unknown

Opinion

ALMALIK RASUWL, Case No. 3:19-cv-01832-MMA-WVG CDCR #BK-0601, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE vs. A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND MARK HAYS; FRANK CLAMSER; § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING APRIL SIPPERLEY; JUSTIN WHITE, TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Defendants. WITH COURT ORDER Plaintiff Almalik Rasuwl, currently housed at Valley State Prison located in Chowchilla, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2019. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. I. Procedural History On October 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff was advised of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. at 6-10. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before December 16, 2019 and nearly three months have passed since the Court issued its October 29, 2019 Order. But to date, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension time in which to do so. “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). Conclusion and Order Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 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)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s October 29, 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. DATE: January 24, 2020 Mfesick: - hill HO . MICHAEL M. NELLO United States District Judge 2 ee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rasuwl v. Hays, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Rasuwl v. Hays (Rasuwl v. Hays) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 1983
22 U.S.C. § 1983
Proceedings in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)