Mills v. Patricio et al

1
25cv2158-AJB-DEB
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
JAKAN MILLS,
CDCR #P11240,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PATRICIO;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VALENCIA;
AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-2158-AJB-DEB
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(b) AND FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
On August 20, 2025, Plaintiff Jakan Mills, a state inmate currently incarcerated at
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil
rights action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) After the
Court initially dismissed the action for failure to pay the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) and/or failure to properly move to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a), Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. Nos.
3; 4.) On March 26, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP, screened
and dismissed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, notified Plaintiff of the deficiencies of
his pleading, and granted leave to amend. (Doc. No. 5.) On May 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a
Case 3:25-cv-02158-AJB-DEB Document 8 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25cv2158-AJB-DEB
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
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 6.) On July 24, 2026, the Court screened
and dismissed the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b), again notified
Plaintiff of the pleading deficiencies, and granted leave to amend on or before September
8, 2026. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was also informed that if he failed to file a Second Amended
Complaint within the time provided the Court would enter a final Order dismissing this
civil action based both on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A(b)(1), and failure to prosecute
in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. (Id. at 10–11 (citing Lira v.
Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of
the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the
complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”)).)
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise contacted the
Court. “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 it will not do so—is properly
met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 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).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) &
1915A(b)(1), and for failure to prosecute. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter final
judgment accordingly and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-02158-AJB-DEB Document 8 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2