1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCUS A. PRICE, Case No. 24-cv-08631-JSW 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL Re: Dkt. No. 5 10 JOHN, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 On January 13, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs civil rights complaint for failure to 13 || present a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was granted 28 days to file an 14 || amended complaint and warned that if he did not do so the case would be dismissed. He has not 3 15 || filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time, or shown cause why not. This case is a 16 || accordingly DISMISSED with prejudice. See WMX Technologies v. Miller,

, 1136 2 17 || (Oth Cir. 1997) (when complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff does not Z 18 || amend, further district court determination is necessary). 19 Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to counsel in a 20 || civil case, and at least at this stage, the case is not complex: to successfully amend the complaint, 21 Plaintiff need only request and provide the last names of the NSH staff members whom he intends 22 || sue. He has not shown cause why he cannot do that. 23 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: July 31, 2025 26 27 iy ites J JNHITE 28 ited States District Judge