Braggs v. San Diego Sheriff's Department

1
24-cv-01772-RBM-VET
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
MICHAEL THOMAS LEKEITH
BRAGGS,
BOOKING #24723149,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAN DIEGO SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT and SAN DIEGO
DEPUTY SERGEANT Q. BROCK,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-01772-RBM-VET
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff Michael Thomas LeKeith Braggs, an inmate at the
George Bailey Detention Facility in Santee, California, proceeding pro se, filed a civil
rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming he was subjected to the excessive
use of force while being booked into the San Diego Central Jail. (Doc. 1.) He also filed a
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.)
On October 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and dismissed
the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 3.) On November 29,
2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and a second motion to proceed IFP.
(Docs. 4–5.) 	On May 9, 2025, the Court denied the second IFP motion as moot and
Case 3:24-cv-01772-RBM-VET Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
24-cv-01772-RBM-VET
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
dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff was
instructed that unless he filed a Second Amended Complaint on or before June 20, 2025,
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 6 (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.”).)
As of the date of this Order Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint,
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action 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 Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly and close
the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01772-RBM-VET Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2