Williams v. City of Sacramento Police Department et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/30/12; this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CODIE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-11-1538 EFB P

CITY OF SACRAMENTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

14
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
On March 6, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The

20
21

dismissal order explained the complaint’s deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended

22

complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended

23

complaint may result in this action being dismissed.

24

////

25

////

26

////
1

1
2
3

The 30-day period has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or
otherwise responded to the court’s order.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute

4

and failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

5

Dated: April 30, 2012.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2