Van Dusen v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/10/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
JAN VAN DUSEN,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 13-05023 LB
Plaintiff,

v.
13

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING
MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
14
15

[Re: ECF No. 14]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16

On October 28, 2013, Jan Van Dusen, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against 51

17

separate defendants. Since then, the court has granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

18

ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve those defendants, and reminded Ms. Van Dusen of her need to

19

provide the Clerk of the Court with addresses for those defendants and of the requirement that they

20

be served within 120 days of her filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On January 30,

21

2014, Ms. Van Dusen filed an ex parte motion to file a First Amended Complaint. Motion, ECF No.

22

13. She said that allowing her to do so would allow her to better state her claims against certain

23

defendants. On February 10, 2014, the court granted her motion and gave her leave to file a First

24

Amended Complaint by February 24, 2014. 2/10/2014 Order, ECF No. 14. She did not do so.

25

Thus, on March 7, 2014, the court ordered Ms. Van Dusen to show cause by March 14, 2014 why

26

the case should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute it. See 3/7/2014 Order, ECF No. 15.

27
28

Also on March 7, 2014, presumably without yet seeing the court’s order to show cause, Ms. Van
Dusen filed an ex parte request for additional time to file an amended complaint. See Motion, ECF

C 13-05023 LB
ORDER

1

No. 14. She explains the delay and asks for additional time to file her amended complaint. See id.

2

In these circumstances, the court discharges the order to show cause, finds good cause for the

3

additional time, and gives Ms. Van Dusen until March 14, 2014 to file her amended complaint. As

4

explained in its order to show cause, failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case without

5

prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

6

(court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action); see also Pagtalunan

7

v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth five non-exhaustive factors for the court

8

to consider).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2014

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-05023 LB
ORDER

2