Jones v. Runge et al
Filing
13
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/7/2021. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2021)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)
Case 5:21-cv-00281-BLF Document 13 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
RONALD ANTHONY JONES,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff,
12
Case No. 21-00281 BLF (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
13
14
KYLE RUNGE, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
19
against the officers at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”). Dkt. No. 1. On May 11, 2021,
20
the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, to correct various deficiencies.
21
Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days
22
from the date the order was filed and advised that failure to respond would result in the
23
dismissal of the action without further notice to Plaintiff. Id. at 5. Then on June 14, 2021,
24
the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time until July 30, 2021. Dkt. No.
25
12.
26
27
28
The deadline has long since passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended
complaint in the time provided. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without
Case 5:21-cv-00281-BLF Document 13 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
1
prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint. The Clerk shall terminate all pending
2
motions and close the file.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _September 7, 2021___
________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\00281Jones_dis-compl.
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?