Rosete v. California Border Patrol

Opinion

ERNESTO ROSETE, an individual, Case No.: 22-cv-89-GPC(AGH) Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE Defendant. WITH COURT ORDER On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Ernesto Rosete (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a form complaint against an agent of Defendant California Border Patrol. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On March 9, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 3.) The Court granted him leave to file an amended complaint no later than April 1, 2022. (Id. at 4.) On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff attempted to file a notice of voluntary dismissal but it was rejected because it was lacking a signature. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 5.) Plaintiff has not filed anything since March 14, 2022. Over five months have passed since Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due and Plaintiff has not filed a proper notice of voluntary dismissal. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to ! the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or indicating to the court that the] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.’’) Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and his failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s March 9, 2022 order. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. Dated: October 13, 2022 (2 opto Cs A ) Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge