Sims v. San Diego County Jail Medical et al

1
24cv1489-LL-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TONY LAMONT SIMS, JR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL,
GEORGE BAILEY MEDICAL, SHARP
GROSSMONT HOSPITAL,
ALVARADO HOSPITAL, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, KELLY MARTINEZ,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24cv1489-LL-DDL
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
On August 19, 2024, Tony Lamont Sims, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF Nos. 1–2. The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion but
dismissed the original complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. ECF No. 6.
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 24, 2025. ECF No. 7. On
July 25, 2025, the Court dismissed the FAC for failure to state a claim and gave Plaintiff
another opportunity to amend. ECF No. 8. The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that a failure
to respond to the Court’s dismissal order by failing to file a Second Amended Complaint
Case 3:24-cv-01489-LL-DDL Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
24cv1489-LL-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would result in the Court entering a final order of dismissal of this action. Id. at 8. Plaintiff
requested an extension of time [ECF No. 9], which the Court granted on September 9,
2025, giving Plaintiff until October 15, 2025 to file his Second Amended Complaint. ECF
No. 10.
I. 	DISCUSSION
The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order has passed and the Court has
received no communication from Plaintiff since his September 2, 2025 request for an
extension of time. “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).
II. 	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.
Dated: January 8, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01489-LL-DDL Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2