1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MAURICE TERAE CHAVARRY, Jr., Case No.: 3:24-cv-01411-RSH-VET Booking #24728371, 11 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13

14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL 15 STAFF; SAN DIEGO COUNTY 16 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On August 7, 2024, Maurice Terae Chavarry, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a detainee proceeding 20 pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to

[ECF No. 1]. On December 21 30, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s IFP application but dismissed the 22 Complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. ECF No. 3. The Court gave Plaintiff 23 until February 14, 2025 to file an amended complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies 24 identified in the dismissal order and also cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to respond by 25 filing an amended complaint would result in the Court entering a final order of dismissal 26 of this action. See

. 27 28 1 Thereafter, mail sent by the Clerk to Plaintiff's address of record was returned as 2 || undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not amended his complaint, provided an updated address, 3 |}or otherwise communicated with the Court. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 4 respond to the court’s ulttmatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the 5 || court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” 6 || Edwards v. Marin Park,

, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 7 || F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (the Court has discretion to sua sponte dismiss a case for 8 ||lack of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order). Therefore, the Court 9 || DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close 10 || the case. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 12 || Dated: February 25, 2025 fekut ¢ Howe 13 Hon.RobertS.Huie ——S 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 oe