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)

Download PDF
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

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?