DAHL v. VIRGA, 2:14-cv-0949 AC P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151015821
Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 4. By order filed August 7, 2015, this court requested, for the second time, that the Office of the California Attorney General (AG) contact officials at the California
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 4. By order filed August 7, 2015, this court requested, for the second time, that the Office of the California Attorney General (AG) contact officials at the California D..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 4. By order filed August 7, 2015, this court requested, for the second time, that the Office of the California Attorney General (AG) contact officials at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to determine the location of plaintiff's missing property. See ECF No. 27. The AG timely filed a supplemental response on August 28, 2015, which indicated that plaintiff had received all of his property. See ECF No. 28.
The court's August 7, 2015 order also dismissed plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend, directed plaintiff to review the AG's supplemental response and then, if dissatisfied, to file a Third Amended Complaint by October 1, 2015. See ECF No. 27 at 3. Plaintiff was informed that "failure to timely file a Third Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice." Id.
The time for filing a Third Amended Complaint has expired and plaintiff has not communicated with court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
