1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASPER FORD, Case No. 24-cv-06807-EKL 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE 10 ADAMS, et al., ll Defendants. 12

13 On April 22, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff Jasper Ford’s complaint and filed an order 14 || of dismissal with leave to amend. ECF No. 11. The order warned Ford that the case may be 3 15 || dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint within 28 days. /d. at5. After the mailing was a 16 returned to the Clerk as undeliverable, the Court updated Ford’s address and re-sent the order on 3 17 June 11, 2025. ECF No. 13. More than two months later, the Court has not received an amended S 18 || complaint, request for extension of time, or any other communication from Ford. Given that Ford 19 || failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11 and failed to file an amended complaint, the matter is 20 |} DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See WMX Techs. v. Miller,

, 1136 (9th Cir. 21 1997) (holding that further action by district court is necessary where plaintiff fails to amend after 22 || dismissal with leave to amend); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 23 || dismissal of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failing to notify court of his change of address). 24 The Clerk shall close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: August 12, 2025 27 Eumi K. Lee 28 United States District Judge