Stultz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 || Edwardo STULTZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1840-AGS-LR > Plaintity, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 7 || John DOE #1, ct al., PROSECUTE Defendants. 9 The Court previously dismissed the complaint in this case without prejudice, but 11 || granted plaintiff Edwardo Stultz leave to amend by April 4, 2025. (ECF 4.) The Court ||subsequently extended Stultz’s deadline to amend to May 2, 2025. (ECF 6.) Since then, 13 || beyond filing a notice of address change on June 23, 2025, Stultz has not responded to the 14 || dismissal order nor filed an amended complaint. Stultz’s failure to respond to the court’s order “is properly met with the sanction of Rule 41(b) dismissal.” See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 || So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 18 ||…