Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00345/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00345-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2672pi Federal Tort Claim Act - Personal Injury

---

- 1 -

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEA BEAUMONT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS BOARD 

VICTIMS COMPENSATION GRANT,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19cv345-LAB (LL)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Bea Beaumont brought this case seeking to recover damages from the 

California “Government Claims Board Victims Compensation Grant” related to an assault 

she allegedly suffered while employed as a high school teacher. See Complaint, Dkt. 1. 

Noting that disputes with the Claims Board are matters for state courts and agencies, the 

Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) on February 25, 2019 requiring Beaumont 

to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. 

On March 19, 2019, Beaumont partially responded, requesting an extension of 

time to respond to the OSC until April 22, 2019. Dkt. 6. The Court granted that extension 

but cautioned that “[i]f she fails to show cause or does not respond, this case will be 

dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. 7. April 22, 2019 has come and gone, but Beaumont 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00345-LAB-LL Document 10 Filed 04/29/19 PageID.<pageID> 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

has not responded to the Court’s OSC.1 This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Beaumont may pursue her claims in state court or in some other court 

where jurisdiction is proper. The clerk is directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

 

1 The Court acknowledges that its order granting Beaumont an extension of time was 

“returned as undeliverable.” See Dkt. 9. But the Court’s original OSC was likewise 

returned as undeliverable and Beaumont still responded that order, so the Court has 

reason to believe that Beaumont has other means of accessing the docket. In any event, 

it is incumbent on litigants (not the Court) to ensure that their mailing addresses are 

correct so that they timely receive copies of filed documents. 

Case 3:19-cv-00345-LAB-LL Document 10 Filed 04/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2