1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES DAVID WILLIAMS, Case No. 20-cv-04348-NW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 CDCR, ll Defendant. 12

13 On April 16, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 34. 14 || Plaintiff James David Williams, proceeding pro se, was granted leave to amend his complaint to 3 15 || address several deficiencies and update his address with the Court within 28 days. Id. The a 16 || deadline passed and Williams has not filed an amended complaint, updated his address with the 3 17 || Court, or otherwise corresponded with the Court. Accordingly, the remaining claim is 18 || DISMISSED without prejudice. See WMX Technologies v. Miller,

, 1136 (9th Cir. 19 1997) (holding that further action by district court is necessary where plaintiff fails to amend after 20 dismissal with leave to amend); Civ. L.R. 3-11; Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 21 1988) (affirming dismissal of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failing to notify court of his change 22 of address). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: May 23, 2025 25 Wich hid Noél Wise 26 United States District Judge 27 28