Williams v. Koenig
- Wise
- 5:20-cv-04348
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Williams v. CDCR: Judge Wise dismissed Williams’s remaining claim without prejudice after he failed to amend or update his address by the deadline.
James David Williams, the self-represented plaintiff, was affected because the court dismissed his remaining claim without prejudice after he did not amend his complaint or update his address. CDCR was the named defendant in the opinion’s caption.
What happened
In Williams v. CDCR, James David Williams represented himself. On April 16, 2025, the court granted CDCR’s motion to dismiss and allowed Williams 28 days to file an amended complaint and update his address.
The deadline passed, but Williams did not file an amended complaint, update his address, or otherwise contact the court. The court therefore dismissed the remaining claim without prejudice.
Judge Noél Wise entered the dismissal on May 23, 2025. The opinion’s caption identifies the defendant as CDCR, not Koenig.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Koenig · No. 5:20-cv-04348
- Wise
- May 23, 2025
Background
On April 16, 2025, the court granted CDCR’s motion to dismiss. The court gave James David Williams, who was representing himself, 28 days to correct several problems by filing an amended complaint and to update his address with the court.
What the court decided
The 28-day deadline passed. Williams had not filed an amended complaint, updated his address, or otherwise communicated with the court. The court dismissed the remaining claim without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not describe any conditions for doing so.
Classification and scope
This was a procedural order because the court dismissed the remaining claim after Williams failed to comply with the deadline following an earlier dismissal with permission to amend. The opinion does not decide the underlying legal merits of that claim. Judge Noél Wise signed the order. The opinion’s caption names CDCR as the defendant; it does not identify Koenig as a party.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.