Jones v. Mendocino County Superior Court
- Donna Ryu
- 3:24-cv-07435
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Jones v. Mendocino County Superior Court, Judge Ryu dismissed the case without prejudice after Jones failed to amend or contact the court.
Lamont William Jones’s case was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants were no longer required to litigate the closed case, and all pending motions were terminated.
What happened
In Jones v. Mendocino County Superior Court, the court had screened Lamont William Jones’s complaint and allowed him 28 days to file an amended complaint or a habeas petition. The court warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not do so.
The dismissal order was returned as undeliverable. More than three months later, the court had received no amended filing, extension request, or other communication from Jones. The court found that he had not complied with Civil Local Rule 3-11 and had not filed an amended complaint.
Judge Donna Ryu dismissed the matter without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Mendocino County Superior Court · No. 3:24-cv-07435
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
On June 11, 2025, the court screened Lamont William Jones’s complaint and entered an order dismissing it with leave to amend. The court gave Jones 28 days to file an amended complaint or a habeas petition and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not do so.
The court’s June 11 order was returned as undeliverable on June 25, 2025. More than three months later, the court had not received an amended complaint, a request for more time, or any other communication from Jones.
Ruling
The court stated that Jones failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 3-11 and failed to file an amended complaint. It dismissed the matter without prejudice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
Effect of the Ruling
The opinion does not decide the underlying claims. The dismissal was based on Jones’s failure to comply with the court’s instructions and the cited local rule. Because the court specified that the dismissal was without prejudice, the order did not bar refiling on that basis. The supplied case name identifies the defendant as Mendocino County Superior Court, while the opinion’s caption lists “Mendocino County, et al.”
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.