Perry v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 02/25/2013. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ANTHONY A. PERRY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

No. C-12-03534 DMR
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.
___________________________________/

16
17

On November 21, 2012, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Anthony A. Perry’s application to

18

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend and ordered

19

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 10, 2012. [Docket No. 9.] On December 10,

20

2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file his amended complaint.

21

[Docket No. 12.] The court granted Plaintiff’s request and ordered Plaintiff to file the amended

22

complaint by January 4, 2013. [Docket No. 13.] On January 4, 2012, instead of filing the amended

23

complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 21, 2012 order.

24

[Docket No. 14.] On January 14, 2013, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and

25

granted Plaintiff until January 31, 2013 to file the amended complaint. [Docket No. 15.] Plaintiff

26

did not filed an amended complaint. On February 7, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause

27

why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [Docket No. 16.]

28

1

In his February 19, 2013 response to the order to show cause (Docket No. 18), Plaintiff did

2

not explain why he did not file a timely amended complaint, nor did he attempt to file an amended

3

complaint. Instead of addressing the defects in his earlier complaint, he discussed additional alleged

4

harms that he claims to have experienced since February 8, 2013. Plaintiff has been given ample

5

opportunity to file an amended complaint, and was warned that failure to do so would result in

6

dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute. The court now dismisses the complaint without

7

prejudice.

S

. Ryu

aM
e Donn
JudgRYU
DONNA M.

12
13

United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

A

H

ER

R NIA

Dated: February 25, 2013

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

NO

United States District Court

10

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LI

UNIT
ED

9

RT
U
O

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C