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)

Download PDF
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?