Flournoy v. Contra Costa County et al
Filing
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/11/2022. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JAMES HENRY FLOURNOY, P00154293,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Case No. 21-cv-07480-CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Marin County Jail (MCJ) facing parole revocation proceedings
13
on prior criminal convictions (as well as pretrial proceedings on new criminal charges), filed a pro
14
se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging numerous violations of his federal civil rights
15
against numerous officials at the Contra Costa County Jail (CCCJ), where he was formerly
16
incarcerated. Plaintiff specifically claims more than a dozen separate federal rights violations
17
ranging from medical malpractice and negligence to retaliation and use of excessive force by
18
different officials at CCCJ.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On November 30, 2021, the court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
and dismissed it (1) with leave to amend to file an amended complaint regarding plaintiff’s
medical malpractice and negligence claim against several CCCJ medical staff, and (2) without
prejudice to plaintiff filing separate actions regarding his other claims. As to the medical
malpractice and negligence claim, the court explained that plaintiff must “set forth specific dates
and facts showing how each named individual CCCJ medical defendant was deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs, if possible. It is not enough that a defendant was
negligent or grossly negligent.” ECF No. 6 at 3 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36
& n.4 (1994)). The court also warned plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file a proper amended complaint
within [28 days] will result in the dismissal of this action.” Id. at 4.
1
More than 40 days have passed since the court’s November 30, 2021 order and plaintiff
2
has neither filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of time to do so. This action
3
accordingly is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4
The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
Dated: January 11, 2022
______________________________________
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?