Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robert C. Bowie v. R. Stovall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 7, 2012

ROBERT C. BOWIE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. STOVALL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

On April 11, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim. The dismissal order explained the complaint's deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in this action being dismissed. The 30-day period has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff did, however, file a letter in response to the court's order. Dckt. No. 18.

Construing that letter as amended complaint, the court finds that the allegations therein suffer from the same defects as the original complaint. See Apr. 11, 2012 Screening Order, Dckt. No. 15 at 3 ("The allegations in plaintiff's complaint are so vague and conclusory that the court cannot determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief."); id. at 5 ("Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant.").

Despite notice of the deficiencies of his claim and an opportunity to amend, plaintiff appears to be unable to state a cognizable claim for relief, and further leave to amend appears futile. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.")

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

20120807

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.