Wallace v. Olson et al
||R. Olson and J. Ramirez
||July 27, 2016
||US District Court for the Southern District of California
||San Diego Office
||Anthony J. Battaglia
||Nita L. Stormes
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|April 12, 2017
ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 23 Motion to Correct Order; granting 17 Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court: 1) DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration, Appointment of Counsel, and to Correct the Court's 3/28/2017 Order [ECF Nos. 14, 19, 23]; 2) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Cause of Action #3 [ECF No. 17]; 3) DISMISSES Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without further leave to amend f or failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and 4) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order of dismissal would not be taken "in good faith" ; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous). The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 4/12/2017. (acc)
|November 15, 2016
ORDER denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Secretary CDCR, or his designee, is ordered to collect from prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee owed in this cas e by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month income credited to the account and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accord ance with 28 USC 1915(b)(2). (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR). The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 67; 1915A(b)(1), and GRANTS him forty-five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in which to file an Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within that time, the Cour t will enter a final Order dismissing this civil action based both 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)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to pros ecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment. See 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.) Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 11/14/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?