From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatcher v. Monahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 14, 2018
Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC

06-14-2018

ROBERT HATCHER, also known as ROBERT L. JACKSON, Booking No. 17182375, Plaintiff, v. CASEY MONAHAN, Defendant.


ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A(b) AND FOR FAILING TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING AMENDMENT

Robert Hatcher ("Plaintiff"), while housed at San Diego Central Jail, and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 6, 2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1.

I. Procedural History

On April 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). See ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was informed of his pleading deficiencies, and granted 45 days leave in which to file an Amended Complaint that fixed them. Id. at 4-6.

More than two months have passed since the Court's April 5, 2018 Order, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before May 22, 2018. But to date, Plaintiff has failed to amend, and has not asked for an extension of time in which to do so. "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 without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court's April 5, 2018 Order (ECF No. 12).

Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting Production of Video Footage" and "Motion for Investigator" (ECF Nos. 14, 16) are DENIED as moot.

The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of dismissal and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 14, 2018

/s/_________

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Hatcher v. Monahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 14, 2018
Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2018)
Case details for

Hatcher v. Monahan

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HATCHER, also known as ROBERT L. JACKSON, Booking No. 17182375…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 14, 2018

Citations

Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2018)

Citing Cases

Hatcher v. Martinez

one);2) Hatcher v. Monahan, Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00492-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2018) (dismissing civil…

Hatcher v. Hang

1) Hatcher v. Aurthur, et al., Civil Case No. 3:18-cv-00491-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2018) (Order Denying…