From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franks v. Roberts

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 3, 2024
3:23-cv-2130-JAH-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2024)

Opinion

3:23-cv-2130-JAH-DDL

06-03-2024

TOM M. FRANKS, CDCR # AV-3360, Plaintiff, v. S. ROBERTS, SHAKIBA, MAJAMAD, Defendants.


ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

JOHN A. HOUSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 9, 2023, Tom M. Franks (“Plaintiff” or “Franks”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. On December 20, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff 45 days to file an amended complaint and advised him that failure to do so would result in the Court entering a final order of dismissal. Id. at 8. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to file his amended complaint, the latter of which required Plaintiff to file it no later than April 22, 2024. See ECF No. 11.

II. DISCUSSION

The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court's Order has passed and the Court has received no further communication from Plaintiff. 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); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (providing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with the federal rules or court order).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety based on Plaintiff's failure to state a plausible § 1983 claim and his failure to prosecute this action. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Franks v. Roberts

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 3, 2024
3:23-cv-2130-JAH-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2024)
Case details for

Franks v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:TOM M. FRANKS, CDCR # AV-3360, Plaintiff, v. S. ROBERTS, SHAKIBA, MAJAMAD…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jun 3, 2024

Citations

3:23-cv-2130-JAH-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2024)