1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 GARY D EASLEY, Case No. 5:22-cv-02344-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 10 v.

11 DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff filed the present action on April 15, 2022. ECF No. 1. Magistrate Judge 14 DeMarchi screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

. On May 2, 2022, 15 Magistrate Judge DeMarchi issued an order finding that the complaint failed to satisfy the 16 screening requirements of

and allowed Plaintiff leave to amend by May 23, 17 2022. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline, so on May 26, 18 2022, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. ECF No. 19 6. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file his amended complaint. 20 ECF No. 12. 21 On June 1, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time and ordered 22 Plaintiff to file his amended complaint by July 23, 2022. ECF No. 13. On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff 23 filed a second motion for extension of time. ECF No. 14. On July 8, 2022, the Court granted 24 Plaintiff’s second motion for extension of time and ordered Plaintiff to file his amended complaint 25 by August 15, 2022. ECF No. 16. The Court advised that failure to meet this deadline would 26 result in dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

27 Plaintiff failed to meet this deadline and instead filed a third motion for extension of time on 1 August 18, 2022. ECF No. 17. In his third motion, Plaintiff represented that he could not meet 2 || the Court’s deadline because he contracted Covid-19.

. He requested a brief extension to 3 September 1, 2022 and represented that he was “almost done” with his amended complaint. /d. at 4 2. He also submitted an “incomplete version” of his amended complaint. Jd.; ECF No. 18 5 (Plaintiff's incomplete complaint). On January 13, 2023, finding good cause, the Court granted 6 || Plaintiffs third motion for extension of time and ordered Plaintiff to file his amended complaint 7 by January 27, 2023. ECF No. 19. As several months had passed since Plaintiff represented that 8 || he was “almost done” with his amended complaint and Plaintiff had filed an “incomplete” version 9 of his complaint to substantiate his representation, the Court explicitly warned that failure to meet 10 || this deadline would result in dismissal. Jd. The Court explained that it would not entertain further 11 motions for extension of time. Jd. To date, Plaintiff has still not filed his amended complaint. 12 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 13 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 14 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 3 15 The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: February 9, 2023

EDWARD J. DAVILA 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:22-cv-02344-EJD ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE