Williams v. Brant

Opinion

TOMMY LEE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 23-CV-241-TWR (DDL) Inmate #21114692, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR Plaintiff, FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN v. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER BRANT, Lieutenant #2880, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Tommy Lee Williams, who is proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint (ECF No. 1, “Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on February 6, 2023. Plaintiff alleged Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See generally Compl.) On May 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion but dismissed the Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). (See ECF No. 5.) The Court gave Plaintiff forty- five (45) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 20–21.) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before June 23, 2023. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and has not requested an extension of time in which to do so. (See generally Docket.) “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, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this civil action in entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a clatm upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)ai) and § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court’s May 9, 2023 Order. (See ECF No. 5 at 20-21.) 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: August 30, 2023 —_—— I [59 (OQ bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 2