Adams
Adams v. Clark
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HENRY DESEAN ADAMS, Case No. 22-cv-00047-AMO (PR)
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
9 v. PREJUDICE
10 JOSHUA CLARK, et al.,
Defendants. 11
12 On November 15, 2023, the Court dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff Henry Desean 13 Adams’s second amended complaint. Dkt. 13. Specifically, the Court granted Adams twenty- 14 eight days from the date of the Order to file a third amended complaint (“TAC”) to allege facts 15 sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim. See id. at 2-5. Adams was warned that the 16 failure to timely file a TAC would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id. at 6- 17 7. The time for Adams to file his TAC has passed, and no TAC nor a request for an extension of 18 time to do so, has been filed. Taking into account the salient factors set forth in Ferdik v. 19 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court finds that dismissal is warranted under 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 See Yourish…