Opinion
CV 21-7190-JLS (AGR)
08-17-2022
GILBERT A. TORRES, Plaintiff, v. D. AVALOS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JOSEPHINE L. STATON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. Procedural History
On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint. Plaintiff's complaint arises from his incarceration at California State Prison-Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), where he arrived on February 5, 2021. (Compl. at 11, 17.) He names as defendants the following 22 CSP-LAC prison officials: (1) Correctional Officer D. Avalos; (2) Correctional Officer Miranda; (3) appeals coordinator H. Moseley; (4) Dr. Alphonso Swaby (sued as Swaby Alphonso); (5) Dr. Gian Hernandez; (6) Dr. Mario Nawaz; (7) Registered Nurse Brooks; (8) records analyst D. Valmonte; (9) Sergeant C. Campball; (10) Correctional Officer B. Chavarria; (11) Correctional Officer I. Jaruegui; (12) Correctional Officer A. Ramos; (13) Correctional Officer V. Martinez; (14) Sergeant J. Bravo; (15) Correctional Officer S. Plascious; (16) Correctional Officer J. Morales; (17) Sergeant J. Hernandez; (18) Sergeant Y. Sanchez; (19) Captain Z. Neblett; (20) Lieutenant G. Johnson; (21) Warden R. Johnson; and (22) Correctional Officer D. Lewis. All Defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. (Id. at 2-10.)
On May 9, 2022, the District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) without leave to amend as to Plaintiff's official capacity claims for damages and with leave to amend as to the other claims. (Dkt. No. 18.) The Court explained in detail the deficiencies in the complaint. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file a timely amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies will result in dismissal of the action on the merits or for failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (Id. at 14.)
II. Discussion
Plaintiff did not file a timely First Amended Complaint or request an extension of time to do so.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for the reasons explained in the Order dismissing the complaint filed on May 9, 2022 (Dkt. No. 18) and that judgment be entered.