Kennedy v. City of Sausalito

Filing 18

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/6/2022. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2022)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

KENNETH KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 22-cv-00902-EMC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
CITY OF SAUSALITO,
Defendant.

12
13
14

On February 17, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Kennedy in forma pauperis

15

(“IFP”) status but dismissing his complaint because he had failed to allege facts suggesting a

16

violation of his federal constitutional rights. Because the Court dismissed the case, the Court

17

denied without prejudice his request for a TRO. The Court gave Mr. Kennedy until March 17,

18

2022, to file an amended complaint. See Docket No. 11 (order).

19

On March 1, 2022, the Court’s order was returned as undeliverable. See Docket No. 12.

20

The following day, Court staff spoke to Mr. Kennedy by phone, and he provided an address to

21

which the order should be sent. Court staff sent the order to that address. See Docket No. 15.

22

Since that time, the Court has not heard from Mr. Kennedy. He has not filed an amended

23

complaint, even though the Court’s order warned him that failure to file would result in the Clerk

24

of the Court automatically entering a final judgment and closing the file in the case.

25

In light of Mr. Kennedy’s failure to file an amended complaint, the Court dismisses the

26

case with prejudice and orders the Clerk of the Court to enter a final judgment and close the file in

27

the case. The Court notes that, out of an abundance of caution, it has waited to take action for

28

more than sixty days after its original order was returned as undeliverable. Cf. Civ. L.R. 3-11(b)

1

(“The Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint or strike an answer when: (1) Mail

2

directed to the attorney or pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not

3

deliverable; and (2) The Court fails to receive within 60 days of this return a written

4

communication from the attorney or pro se party indicating a current address.”).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: May 6, 2022

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2