1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT CAVAZOS, Case No. 23-cv-01815-EKL 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 AMBRIZ, et al., ll Defendants. 12

13 On February 24, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's 14 || complaint with leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified in its dismissal order. ECF 3 15 No. 30. The deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise a 16 || corresponded with the Court. Accordingly, the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for 3 17 || failure to comply with the deadline. See WMX Technologies v. Miller,

, 1136 (9th 18 || Cir. 1997) (holding that further action by district court is necessary where plaintiff fails to amend 19 || after dismissal with leave to amend). Any motion seeking to reopen the case must be 20 || accompanied by an amended complaint, which includes the caption and civil case number used in 21 || this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 22 The Clerk shall close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 20, 2025 25

Eumik.Lee United States District Judge 28