1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARK DOWNEY, Case No. 19-cv-03717-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v.

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 On September 23, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 13 and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 9. The Court directed Plaintiff to file 14 an amended complaint no later than October 21, 2019, and warned Plaintiff that failure to file by 15 the deadline may result in the dismissal of the action in its entirety without further leave to amend. 16 Id. at 5. Plaintiff did not file his amended complaint, and the deadline for Plaintiff to do so has 17 long passed. Even after the Court filed an order to show cause why the case should not be 18 dismissed for failure to prosecute, Plaintiff failed to respond. See Dkt. No. 10. To date, the Court 19 has not received any further communications from Plaintiff. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or 2 || to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 3 claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of 4 prosecution. Link vy. Wabash R. Co.,

(1962). The Court finds that Plaintiff 5 has demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to adequately prosecute this case. Accordingly, 6 the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b) for failure to 7 || prosecute. The Clerk shall close the file. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: 12/2/2019 11 7 Haspurred Lh I. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 12 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28