1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 OMAR AGEEL, NO. 2:20-CV-10093-JWH (AGR) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v. 13 R.C. JOHNSON, Warden, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se 3 and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under

against two 4 officials at the California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), 5 Warden Johnson and correctional officer Coleman. (Dkt. No. 1.) 6 Defendants were given leave to file a pre-answer motion for summary 7 judgment based solely on the issue of exhaustion of administrative 8 remedies. (Dkt. No. 17.) 9 On June 21, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, 10 including a Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“SUF”) and supporting 11 evidence. (Dkt. No. 19.) The court set a briefing schedule and notified 12 Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion. 13 (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 22.) Defendants filed a 14 reply. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff filed a surreply (Dkt. No. 26) and a 15 memorandum of points and authorities in support of his opposition (Dkt. 16 No. 27). The motion was taken under submission. 17 On February 17, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 18 Recommendation (“Report”). The Report recommended that the District 19 Court issue an order (1) accepting the Report and Recommendation; 20 (2) granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that 21 Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his remedies before filing this lawsuit; and 22 (3) directing that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 23 exhaust administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 35.) Objections to the Report 24 were due on March 14, 2022. (Dkt. No. 37.) Plaintiff did not file objections 25 to the Report or request an extension of time to do so. 26 On September 27, 2022, the District Court issued an Order Accepting 27 the Findings and Recommendation in the Report issued on Defendants’ 28 motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 43.) The Court’s Order observed 1 | that, after issuance of the Report, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in 2 | Saddozai v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2022). That decision indicated 3 | that dismissal of an amended complaint after the exhaustion requirement 4 | was satisfied or no longer applied would not be appropriate. /d. at 708-10. 5 Because Plaintiff indicated that he exhausted his remedies after the 6 | filing of the complaint, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a First 7 | Amended Complaint within 30 days after entry of the Order on 8 || September 28, 2022. (Dkt. No. 43.) The Order instructed Plaintiff that the 9 | First Amended Complaint should state all of Plaintiff's claims and add facts 10 || regarding exhaustion. 11 Plaintiff did not file a timely First Amended Complaint or request an 12 | extension of time to do so. 13 On April 4, 2024, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show 14 | cause, if there be any, in writing why the court should not recommend 15 | dismissal without prejudice of this action for failure to file a First Amended 16 | Complaint (“FAC”) on or before May 6, 2024. The Court warned Plaintiff 17 | that failure to file a timely FAC or otherwise respond to the Order to Show 18 | Cause may result in dismissal of this action. 19 ll. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff did not file a timely First Amended Complaint or request an 21 | extension of time to do so. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED 23 | without prejudice. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | DATED: _June 26, 2024 \ -%, HY 27 United States District Judge 28