Standley v. Clifton

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CAMERON STANDLEY, Case No. 23-cv-00509-PCP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH 9 v: PREJUDICE 10 JUSTIN CLIFTON, et al., 11 Defendants. L

13 On June 30, 2023, the Court dismissed the original complaint because it failed to state a 14 || cognizable claim for relief. Dkt. No. 9. The Court granted leave to amend. See id. Upon request, 3 15 || the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amended complaint and informed him a 16 || that “[flailure to file an amended complaint in the time provided wi// result in dismissal of this

17 || action without further notice to Plaintiff.” Dkt. No. 11 (emphasis added). The amended complaint Z 18 was due September 15, 2023, see id., but has not been filed, see generally, Dkt. 19 Because Plaintiff failed to amend despite opportunity and a warning of the consequences, 20 || this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th 21 Cir. 2017) (recognizing propriety of dismissing action where plaintiff failed to amend). 22 If Plaintiff believes he can state a cognizable claim, he may move to reopen this action. See 23 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, 60. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: October 23, 2023 26 Zo 27 L Coy P. Casey Pitts 28 United States District Judge