Opinion
24-cv-02099-JSC
07-23-2024
RAMELLO RANDLE, Plaintiff, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility proceeding without representation by an attorney, filed this civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 28, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to present a claim that is capable of judicial determination. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was granted until June 28, 2024, to file an amended complaint, and warned that if he did not do so the case would be dismissed. (ECF No. 8 at 7:1416 (“If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the designated time and in compliance with this order, or if it is not sufficient, the case will be dismissed.”) (emphasis omitted)). He has not filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time to do so, or shown cause why not.
The Court received a letter from Plaintiff in which he stated that as of May 30, 2024, he had not received “further instructions” regarding this case or been informed “where to send evidence to.” (ECF No. 10.) He also alleged that he experienced delays of approximately three weeks in receiving mail from the Court. (Id.) This letter does not fairly suggest Plaintiff did not receive the order of dismissal with leave to amend because the docket indicates the order was mailed to him on May 29, 2024, only one day before Plaintiff wrote the letter, and therefore the order and letter would have crossed in the mail. There is also no indication of a delay in Plaintiff receiving the order of dismissal with leave to amend, let alone that any such delay prevented Plaintiff from timely amending or seeking an extension of time to do so.
More than three weeks have passed since the deadline to amend without an amended complaint or request for an extension of time.
As Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time to do so, or shown cause why not, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. See WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (when complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff does not amend, further district court determination is necessary).
The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.