Opinion
3:20-cv-02435-DMS-JLB
06-22-2021
DANIEL D. RICHARDSON, Booking #19731938, Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S OFFICE; GEORGE BAILEY DETENTION; A. APEZ, Deputy/Corrections SDSO; OFFICER H., Deputy/Corrections SDSO; CREW SHIFT, Deputy/Corrections SDSO, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER
HON. DANA M. SABRAW, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel D. Richardson, incarcerated at the County of San Diego Sheriff Department's George F. Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”), and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1. While short on specifics, Richardson's Complaint named the County Sheriff's Office, GBDF, two Sheriff's Department deputies, and an entire “Crew Shift” as Defendants, and alleged they committed acts of racial discrimination and medical malpractice. Id. at 2‒5. Richardson sought injunctive relief related to his criminal case, as well as $53,000 in both general and punitive damages. Id. at 7.
Richardson also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 2.
I. Procedural History
On March 15, 2021, the Court granted Richardson permission to proceed IFP, but dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 4. Richardson was notified of his pleading deficiencies, and was ordered to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them within 60 days. Id. at 5‒10. Richardson was also warned his failure to amend would result in dismissal. Id. at 10‒11, citing Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a dismissal of the entire action.”).
Richardson has not filed an Amended Complaint, more than three months have passed since the Court issued its March 15, 2021 Order, and he has not filed a request for an extension of time in which to amend. “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).
II. Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Richardson's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and his failure to prosecute as required by the Court's March 15, 2021 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 case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.