Stultz v. Doe #1 et al

1
3:24-cv-1840-AGS-LR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Edwardo STULTZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
John DOE #1, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:24-cv-1840-AGS-LR
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
The Court previously dismissed the complaint in this case without prejudice, but
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,
beyond filing a notice of address change on June 23, 2025, Stultz has not responded to the
dismissal order nor filed an amended complaint.
Stultz’s failure to respond to the court’s order “is properly met with the sanction of
a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004).
So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01840-AGS-LR Document 8 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 1