Torfason v. Internal Revenue Service

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES PAUL ANDREW TORFASON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00680-JO-AHG CDCR #BM-9887, 12

Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE 14 TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 15 WITH COURT ORDER Department of Treasury,

16 Defendant. 17 18 19 I. Introduction 20 Plaintiff James Torfason filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 21 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on May 22 13, 2022. ECF Nos. 1–2. Plaintiff alleged he was improperly denied his Coronavirus Aid, 23 Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) stimulus check. ECF No. 1. On November 8, 24 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismissed the Complaint for failure to 25 state a claim and gave Plaintiff forty-five (45) days to file an amended complaint. ECF 26 No. 5. 27 On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension of time for one hundred 28 days. Plaintiff stated that if he received a CARES check during this time, he would dismiss | case; otherwise, he would file an Amended Complaint within the one-hundred-day 2 ||time frame. ECF No. 7. On December 19, 2022, the Court granted the extension of time 3 ||making the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint due on or before April 18, 2023. ECF No. 8. 4 || To date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which 5 ||to do so. The Court, therefore, dismisses this case. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually 6 respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to 7 ||the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 8 || dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 Conclusion and Order 10 The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to 11 a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12 |} 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s 13 |}December 19, 2022 Order. 14 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 15 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 16 || dismissal and close the file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 ||Dated: June 5, 2023 20 1 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ee