1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAMIEN LASHON HALL, Case No. 23-cv-02999-PCP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH 9 Vv. PREJUDICE 10 G. BARRY, ll Defendant.

13 On July 24, 2023, the Court dismissed the original complaint because it failed to state a 14 || cognizable claim for relief. Dkt. No. 12. The Court granted leave to amend. See id. The Court 3 15 || informed Plaintiff that “[flailure to file an amended complaint in the time provided will result in a 16 || dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.” Dkt. No. 12 (emphasis added). The

17 amended complaint was due September 4, 2023, see id., but has not been filed, see generally, Dkt. 18 Because Plaintiff failed to amend despite opportunity and a warning of the consequences, 19 || this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Harris v. Mangum,

(9th 20 || Cir. 2017) (recognizing propriety of dismissing action where plaintiff failed to amend). 21 If Plaintiff believes he can state a cognizable claim, he may move to reopen this action. See 22 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, 60. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 1, 2024 25 26 Mag bom P. Casey Pitts 27 United States District Judge 28