Torfason v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, S.D. California·Decided June 5, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00680·Unknown

Opinion

JAMES PAUL ANDREW TORFASON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00680-JO-AHG CDCR #BM-9887,

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

Defendant. I. Introduction Plaintiff James Torfason filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on May 13, 2022. ECF Nos. 1–2. Plaintiff alleged he was improperly denied his Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) stimulus check. ECF No. 1. On November 8, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion but dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim and gave Plaintiff forty-five (45) days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 5. On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff requested an extension of time for one hundred 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 time frame. ECF No. 7. On December 19, 2022, the Court granted the extension of time making the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint due on or before April 18, 2023. ECF No. 8. To date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. The Court, therefore, dismisses this case. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually 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 The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to 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 as required by the Court’s }December 19, 2022 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. Dated: June 5, 2023 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta United States District Judge 2 ee

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

Torfason v. Internal Revenue Service, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Torfason v. Internal Revenue Service (Torfason v. Internal Revenue Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 12
28 U.S.C. § 12
Proceedings in forma pauperis
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)