Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06650-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE GODOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND GERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06650-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Dkt. No. 1. 

On January 29, 2019, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed the complaint with 

leave to amend because it did not comply with Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 

that it alleged unrelated claims against different sets of defendants. Dkt. No. 9. In the order 

screening the complaint, the Court also noted the following additional deficiencies in the 

complaint: many of the incidents described did not give rise to constitutional claims and the 

complaint’s allegations failed to state clearly what happened, when it happened, what each 

defendant did, and how these actions or inactions rose to the level of a federal constitutional claim. 

The Court dismissed claims arising out of events that occurred at the California Institute for Men, 

Mule Creek State Prison, and Substance Abuse Treatment Facility without prejudice to bringing 

separate actions in the federal district courts where these facilities are located. See generally Dkt. 

No. 9. Plaintiff was instructed to file an amended complaint by February 26, 2019, and informed 

that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Id. The 

Court granted plaintiff multiple extensions of time to file an amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 12, 

16, 18. 

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

On August 26, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 24. On November 

26, 2019, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend because it suffered

from the same deficiencies as the original complaint. Dkt. No. 28. The amended complaint again

violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 in that it alleged a wide variety of claims that were unrelated, and again 

raised allegations that arose from events in other venues. See generally Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff was 

instructed to file a second amended complaint by December 24, 2019, and informed that the 

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. Id. Upon 

receiving a notice of change of address from plaintiff on December 27, 2019, the Court sua sponte

granted plaintiff an extension of time to February 14, 2020, to file a second amended complaint. 

Dkt. Nos. 33, 34. Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint and the deadline to do so has 

since passed.12 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED. If plaintiff wishes to reopen this case, 

any motion to reopen must explain why plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline for filing a 

second amended complaint and be accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint that 

complies with the deficiencies identified in the Court’s November 26, 2019 screening order.

For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/24/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1

It appears that plaintiff’s address has changed, but that he has not informed the Court of his new 

address as required by N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-11. Mail sent to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on 

January 21, February 3, and February 14, 2020. See Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, 38. Pursuant to Local Rule 

3-11, the Court may, without prejudice, dismiss a complaint when mail directed to the pro se party

by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable; and the Court fails to receive within

sixty (60) days of this return a written communication from the pro se party indicating a current

address.

2 Since the Court’s November 26, 2019 screening order, plaintiff has filed the following pleadings

in this action: (1) an ex parte motion for an immediate and permanent or temporary order for

injunction and a motion for appointment of counsel; (2) a December 12, 2019 notice of appeal to

the Ninth Circuit; and (3) a February 7, 2020 notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See Dkt. Nos.

29, 30, 37.

Case 4:18-cv-06650-HSG Document 39 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2