From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. U.S. Marshals Serv. Agents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 16, 2017
Case No. 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM

10-16-2017

KYLE JAMES, CDCR #BB-1457, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE AGENTS, K. LANEY; BROWN; JOHN BUCKLEY; JOHN DOES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE , Defendants.


ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) AND FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Kyle James ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison located in Corcoran, California, initially filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)

I. Procedural Background

On August 18, 2017, the Court dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and denied his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 18). The Court granted Plaintiff 45 days in which to file an Amended Complaint that cured these pleading deficiencies. (Id. at 7-8; see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that leave to amend should be granted when complaint is dismissed sua sponte under § 1915 "if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.").)

That time has since passed and Plaintiff has filed no Amended Complaint; nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do so. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) ("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.").

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court's August 8, 2017 Order (ECF No. 18).

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2017

/s/_________

Hon. William Q. Hayes

United States District Court


Summaries of

James v. U.S. Marshals Serv. Agents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 16, 2017
Case No. 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017)
Case details for

James v. U.S. Marshals Serv. Agents

Case Details

Full title:KYLE JAMES, CDCR #BB-1457, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 16, 2017

Citations

Case No. 3:17-cv-0414-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017)