Anderson v. Alameda County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

RICKY D. ANDERSON, JR.,

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,

No. C 11-04275 CW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff filed the present pro se civil rights action under

11

42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he was incarcerated at the Santa Rita County

12

Jail (SRCJ).

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

He makes the following allegations in the complaint:

On or about May 22, 2011 I was called to sick call
by a nurse and was told that a doctor would not want to
see me for extreme pain that comes from a gunshot wound
to my face. I was not seen by a doctor for months and
was prescribed the lowest cost $ for pain medication. In
months time my condition had worsened ears, breathing,
facial pain.
Compl. at 3:10-17.
On April 10, 2012, the Court reviewed the allegations in the
complaint and found as follows:
Here, Plaintiff's claims cannot proceed as plead
because he has not provided sufficient facts for the
Court to determine whether he states a cognizable claim
for relief. He does not explain, for example, the exact
nature of his injury, the medical care he requires, the
reasons provided for refusing him such medical care, and
why the prescribed medicine he received was inadequate.
Additionally, he has linked no Defendant or any other
individual to his allegations and an identifiable injury.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for
failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. He may
file am amended complaint in which he (1) alleges
sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether he
states a claim for the violation of his constitutional
rights, and (2) clearly links Defendants to the alleged
injury or injuries for which the Defendants are alleged

1
2

to be responsible.
Apr. 10, 2012 Order (Order) at 2:28-3:14.

3

The Court directed Plaintiff to file his amended complaint

4

within thirty days from the date of the Order, and informed him

5

that if he failed to do so “the case will be dismissed without

6

prejudice and will be closed.”

7

Order at 4:7-8.

On May 1, 2012, the copy of the Order sent by the Clerk of the

8

Court to Plaintiff at the SRCJ was returned as undeliverable, for

9

the reason that he no longer is in custody.

Docket no. 6.

On May

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

11, 2012, Plaintiff notified the Court of his new address at San

11

Quentin State Prison.

12

sent the Order of dismissal with leave to amend to Plaintiff at his

13

new address.

14

Docket no. 7.

On May 21, 2012, the Clerk

Docket no. 8.

More than thirty days have passed since the Clerk sent the

15

Order to Plaintiff at San Quentin State Prison, and he has not

16

filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the

17

Court.

18

prejudice.

Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED without

19

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: 6/20/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2