Mohammad v. The King City Police Department

Filing 30

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/7/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 5 KHALID MOHAMMAD, Case No. 16-cv-02903-BLF Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 7 8 THE KING CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 On October 27, 2016, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash and motion to 12 dismiss with leave to amend, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before 13 November 28, 2016. ECF 22. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF 23. 14 On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. 15 ECF 25. The Court subsequently extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 16 to January 12, 2017. ECF 26. Because the Ninth Circuit did not issue its formal mandate until 17 January 4, 2017, however, the Court further extended Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended 18 complaint to February 3, 2017. ECF 29. The Court explained that failure to file an amended 19 complaint would result in dismissal. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 20 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 21 Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff 22 eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum . . . is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 23 41(b) dismissal.”). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 7, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

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?