1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LOPEZ MONDRAGON, Case No. 3:20-cv-1574-DMS-AHG Booking No. 20921587, 12

ORDER:

Plaintiff, 13 vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 14

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; WILLIAM

15 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

GORE; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES; S.D.

AND § 1915A(b); AND 16 COUNTY MEDICAL PROVIDERS,

17 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING FOR FAILING

TO PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE

18

WITH COURT ORDER

19 REQUIRING AMENDMENT 20 21 22 23 Jose Lopez Mondragon (“Plaintiff”), while housed at the Vista Detention Facility, 24 and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25 13, 2020. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) 26 I. Procedural History 27 On August 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 but dismissed his Complaint for failing to state any claim upon which relief could be 1 || granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff 2 || was advised of his pleading deficiencies and granted leave in which to file an Amended 3 ||Complaint that fixed them. (/d. at 7-8.) 4 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was due on or before October 26, 2020. But to date, 5 || Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint, and has not requested an extension of time 6 which to do so. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s 7 || ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not 8 || do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, 9 || 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 Conclusion and Order 11 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice 12 ||based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted 13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b), and his failure to prosecute 14 || pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) in compliance with the Court’s August 26, 2020 Order. 15 The Court further CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith 16 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a final judgment of 17 dismissal and close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: February 2, 2021 20 ns my. L4\ Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2