Lemelle v. Rakitan

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Lemelle v. Rakitan

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 MICHAEL S. LEMELLE, Case No. 21-09463 BLF (PR)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v.

13 14 RAKITAN, et al., 15 Defendants.

16

17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

19 against the officers at Salinas Valley State Prison (“S.V.S.P.”). Dkt. No. 1. The matter 20 was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim, who had Plaintiff’s consent. 21 Dkt. No. 5. On February 22, 2022, Magistrate Judge Kim dismissed the complaint with 22 leave to amend, to correct various deficiencies. Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff was directed to file 23 an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date the order was filed and 24 advised that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of the action without further 25 notice to Plaintiff.

Id. at 3

. When the deadline passed without a response from Plaintiff, 26 the matter was reassigned to this Court on March 24, 2022, pursuant to Williams v. King, 27

875 F.3d 500, 502-05

(9th Cir. 2017). Dkt. No. 8. 1 Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint in the time provided. Accordingly, 2 || this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint. 3 || The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: __March 28, 2022 hohe Lous hacen) 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 g

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Order of Dismissal 27 P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\09463Lemelle_dis-compl.

Reference

Status
Unknown