Opinion
3:22-cv-04178-WHO
02-08-2023
JACKSON BLAIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Re: Dkt. Nos. 155, 156
William H. Orrick United States District Judge
The pro se plaintiffs filed this suit against several defendants, alleging violations of various statutes and constitutional rights, stemming from the closure of a homeless encampment in Oakland, California. [Dkt. No. 1]. I granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 3, 2022, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims but granting leave to amend several causes of action. [Dkt. No. 148].
On December 13, 2022, I entered an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why judgment should not be entered in light of the motion to dismiss and/or why the entire case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [Dkt. No. 151]. On January 5, 2023, the plaintiffs responded to the OSC indicating some individuals may wish to pursue the litigation but as a whole they were unable to contact all named plaintiffs to discuss litigation strategy. [Dkt. No. 155]. They requested that, should the case be dismissed, dismissal be without prejudice. Id. On January 9, 20202, I vacated the OSC and granted twenty days to any individual plaintiffs who wished to file an amended complaint. [Dkt. No. 156]. I stated that if no amended complaint was filed within that time period, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Id.
More than twenty days have passed and no amended complaint has been filed, and I have received no indication that any plaintiffs wish to continue litigating this case. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. The claims that were dismissed with prejudice in the Order on the Motion to dismiss are hereby dismissed with prejudice. [Dkt. No. 148]. The claims that were dismissed with leave to amend in that Order are now dismissed without prejudice. Id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.