From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. Doe

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Nov 15, 2024
24-cv-06808-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-06808-WHO (PR)

11-15-2024

ROBERT GARDNER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Robert Gardner has not responded to the Clerk's Notices to file a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (or pay the filing fee), which were sent to him after he sent the Court a letter. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED (without prejudice) for failing to comply with the Clerk's Notices and for failing to prosecute, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Because this dismissal is without prejudice, Gardner may move to reopen. Any such motion must (i) have the words MOTION TO REOPEN written on the first page; (ii) contain a complaint on this Court's form; and (iii) contain a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or full payment for the $402.00 filing fee.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gardner v. Doe

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Nov 15, 2024
24-cv-06808-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024)
Case details for

Gardner v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT GARDNER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Nov 15, 2024

Citations

24-cv-06808-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2024)