1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAMONT WILLIAM JONES, Case No. 24-cv-07435-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: ECF No. 11 10 MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On June 11, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff Lamont William Jones’ complaint and filed 14 an order of dismissal with leave to amend. ECF No. 12. The order warned Jones that the case 15 may be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint or habeas petition within 28 days. Id. 16 at 5. On June 25, 2025, the order of dismissal with leave to amend was returned to the Court as 17 undeliverable. ECF No. 15. More than three months later, the Court has not received an amended 18 complaint, request for extension of time, or any other communication from Jones. Given that 19 Jones failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11 and failed to file an amended complaint, the 20 matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See WMX Techs. v. Miller,

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

(9th Cir. 1988) 23 (affirming dismissal of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failing to notify court of his change of 24 address). The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 16, 2025 27