Opinion
24-CV-00930-CRB (PR)
08-29-2024
TERENCE LEWIS, BP4086, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE 1, WARDEN SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
O”n June 20, 2024, the court (Cousins, M.J.) granted plaintiff leave to amend within 28 days “to attempt to correct the deficiencies discussed” in the court's order. ECF No. 11 at 5. The court specifically warned plaintiff that “[f]ailure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided will result in this matter being reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Id.
On July 15, 2024, the copy of the court's June 20, 2024 order the clerk mailed to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable for lack of sufficient postage. See ECF No. 12. Another copy was mailed again to plaintiff with sufficient postage the next day, July 16, 2024
On August 28, 2024, this case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge because plaintiff has not responded to the court's June 20, 2024 order. In fact, it has been more than 42 days since the clerk mailed the court's June 20, 2024 order to plaintiff with sufficient postage and plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time to do so. The instant action accordingly is DISMISSED.
The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.