ORDER OF DISMISSAL

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, District Judge.

On March 25, 2019, the Court granted the County of Los Angeles' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days after entry of the order. The Court dismissed the individual defendants in their official capacity as redundant. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file a timely First Amended Complaint may result in dismissal of the complaint. (Dkt. No. 37.) The Order was mailed to Plaintiff's then current address and was not returned by the postal service.

Plaintiff failed to file a First Amended Complaint or request a further extension of time to do so.

In addition, on July 11, 2018, the magistrate judge issued an Order to Show Cause why the individual defendants should not be dismissed for failure to serve process. (Dkt. No. 16.) The OSC explained that, according to the process receipts, Officer Flores and Officer Kim could not be identified and served with the limited information provided.

The OSC explained that service of process upon an individual defendant in his or her individual capacity is required. When service of process cannot be accomplished due to the pro se Plaintiff's failure to submit the required documentation, and the Plaintiff fails to remedy the situation after being put on notice, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The OSC required Plaintiff to show cause on or before August 10, 2018 why the individual defendants in their individual capacity should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The OSC also informed Plaintiff that he could conduct discovery to obtain further identifying information about the individual defendants.

The magistrate judge extended the time for Plaintiff to respond to the OSC to October 10, 2018. (Dkt. No. 18.) In addition, the Report and Recommendation on the County's motion to dismiss the complaint advised Plaintiff that he could correct or provide additional information about the name of any individual defendant in the First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 29 at 6.) This Court granted the County's motion to dismiss with leave to file a First Amended Complaint consistent with the magistrate judge's recommendations. (Dkt. No. 37 at 2.) Plaintiff did not file a First Amended Complaint, did not otherwise respond to the OSC, and has not requested additional time to do so.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed against the County of Los Angeles. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) ("Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend his complaint after the district judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order rather than failing to prosecute the claim."). This action is dismissed against the individual defendants for failure to serve process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). All pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.