Edwardo Stultz v. John Doe #1, et al.
Trial Court Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA || Edwardo STULTZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1840-AGS-LR > Plaintity, | ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 6 vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO || John DOE #1, ct al., PROSECUTE 8 Defendants.
10 The Court previously dismissed the complaint in this case without prejudice, but || granted plaintiff Edwardo Stultz leave to amend by April 4, 2025. (ECF 4.) The Court ||subsequently extended Stultz’s deadline to amend to May 2, 2025. (ECF 6.) Since then, || beyond filing a notice of address change on June 23, 2025, Stultz has not responded to the || dismissal order nor filed an amended complaint.
15 Stultz’s failure to respond to the court’s order “is properly met with the sanction of 16 Rule 41(b) dismissal.” See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).
17 || So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
18 || Dated: January 9, 2026 20 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge □□□ .. 10AN □□□□□□
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.