Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01601/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01601-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

- 1 - 07cv1601

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN EDITH JOHANSEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1601-LAB (LSP)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPT., CITY OF

SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1

through 1000,

Defendants.

On August 13, 2007, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her complaint in this action,

along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 20, 2007, the Court

granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and, pursuant to the screening requirement

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed the complaint. The Court dismissed certain claims

with prejudice and the remaining claims without prejudice, granting her 30 days to amend

her complaint to correct the defects noted in the claims dismissed without prejudice. 

On September 18, 2007, shortly before the 30 days was to expire, Plaintiff moved ex

parte for an indefinite extension of time in which to amend her complaint, contending she

was disabled and therefore needed more time to amend her complaint and to find an

attorney willing to represent her. Plaintiff also mentioned a complaint she had filed with the

Ninth Circuit. On October 1, 2007, the Court in part granted her ex parte motion, giving her

Case 3:07-cv-01601-LAB-LSP Document 10 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 07cv1601

leave to amend her complaint no later than November 1, 2007. In this order, the Court noted

it found no reason to grant an indefinite continuance on the basis of the complaint, and

instead was relying solely on her representations of disability to grant the extension. The

Court admonished Plaintiff that further extensions of time would not be granted without a

showing of good cause, including evidence of diligence on her part.

On October 31, 2007, Plaintiff again sought an extension of time in which to amend

her complaint. She included evidence she had contacted a number of attorneys, and stated

she had exhausted all known possibilities of obtaining counsel to represent her. This was

the last pleading filed by Plaintiff.

On November 1, the Court issued an order noting that Plaintiff’s representations

regarding the impossibility of obtaining counsel meant it was apparent Plaintiff would have

to proceed pro se. The Court also noted Plaintiff had never explained the nature of

disability, so it was unclear to what extent her disability might limit her ability to represent

herself. The Court noted, however, it was clear Plaintiff had been disabled for a number of

years, and that her disability had not prevented her from filing her 7-page single-spaced

complaint. The Court also noted most of Plaintiff’s claims were apparently time-barred,

some dating back to 1995, and the most recent occurring in December of 2006. Therefore,

the Court concluded, Plaintiff had had a great deal of time to consider the nature of her

claims. The Court directed Plaintiff, if she wished to rely on her disability as a basis for

additional extensions, she should file a declaration stating the nature of her limitations and

why they prevented her from representing herself. The Court also pointed out it had

explained why Plaintiff’s claims were being dismissed.

On the basis of Plaintiff’s representation of diligence in seeking counsel, the Court

granted Plaintiff an additional extension of time until November 30, 2007. The Court

admonished her no further extensions would be granted without a showing of extraordinarily

good cause.

On November 30, rather than filing her amended complaint or moving for an

additional extension of time, Plaintiff contacted the Court telephonically, stating she was ill

Case 3:07-cv-01601-LAB-LSP Document 10 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 07cv1601

with influenza, and therefore could not file her amended complaint by the deadline. Plaintiff

was informed an additional extension would only be granted if she requested it by motion,

and she was directed to file an application for an additional extension of time.

Plaintiff filed no request for an additional extension. On December 10, the Court

ordered Plaintiff, if she wished to seek an extension, to file an application no later than

December 16, 2007. The Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that if she did not show good

cause why she should be given additional time to amend her complaint, it would be

dismissed without further notice to her. On December 12, 2007, the Court amended this

order to permit Plaintiff to file her application for extension of time no later than the close of

business on December 17, 2007.

Plaintiff has had more than sufficient notice of the facts she needs to amend her

complaint or seek an extension of time in which to amend. To date, however, she has

neither filed an amended complaint nor sought an additional extension of time as ordered.

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 18, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01601-LAB-LSP Document 10 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3