Opinion
23-cv-00509-PCP
10-23-2023
CAMERON STANDLEY, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN CLIFTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
P. Casey Pitts United States District Judge.
On June 30, 2023, the Court dismissed the original complaint because it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Dkt. No. 9. The Court granted leave to amend. See id. Upon request, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amended complaint and informed him that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint in the time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.” Dkt. No. 11 (emphasis added). The amended complaint was due September 15, 2023, see id., but has not been filed, see generally, Dkt.
Because Plaintiff failed to amend despite opportunity and a warning of the consequences, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2017) (recognizing propriety of dismissing action where plaintiff failed to amend).
If Plaintiff believes he can state a cognizable claim, he may move to reopen this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, 60.
IT IS SO ORDERED.