Randle v. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAMELLO RANDLE, Case No. 24-cv-02099-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility proceeding without representation 13 by an attorney, filed this civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 28, 2024, the Court 14 dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to present a claim that is capable of judicial 15 determination. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted until June 28, 2024, to file an amended 16 complaint, and warned that if he did not do so the case would be dismissed. (ECF No. 8 at 7:14- 17 16 (“If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the designated time and in compliance 18 with this order, or if it is not sufficient, the case will be dismissed.”) (emphasis omitted)). He has 19 not filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time to do so, or shown cause why not. 20 The Court received a letter from Plaintiff in which he stated that as of May 30, 2024, he 21 had not received “further instructions” regarding this case or been informed “where to send 22 evidence to.” (ECF No. 10.) He also alleged that he experienced delays of approximately three 23 weeks in receiving mail from the Court. (Id.) This letter does not fairly suggest Plaintiff did not 24 receive the order of dismissal with leave to amend because the docket indicates the order was 25 mailed to him on May 29, 2024, only one day before Plaintiff wrote the letter, and therefore the 26 order and letter would have crossed in the mail. There is also no indication of a delay in Plaintiff 27 receiving the order of dismissal with leave to amend, let alone that any such delay prevented 1 Plaintiff from timely amending or seeking an extension of time to do so.! 2 As Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time to do so, 3 or shown cause why not, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. See WMX Technologies v. 4 Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (when complaint has been dismissed with leave to 5 amend and plaintiff does not amend, further district court determination is necessary). 6 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 23, 2024 9 10 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORL 11 United States District Judge a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' More than three weeks have passed since the deadline to amend without an amended complaint or request for an extension of time.