Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00789-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 7, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with leave 

to amend. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff failed to file a Third Amended Complaint, and on January 2, 2013, the 

Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 11). Because Plaintiff has filed a 

motion for an extension of time (Doc. 12), the Court’s order to show cause is DISCHARGED.

In the motion for an extension of time, Plaintiff asserts he “continues to be under [a] doctor’s 

care. . . and is unable to participate in legal proceedings.” (Doc. 12 at 1). Plaintiff attached a note 

from his psychiatrist dated November 29, 2012, in which Dr. Goklaney asserts Plaintiff would “need 

at least six weeks off [work],” and his condition would be reassessed on January 3, 2012. Id. at 3. 

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an extension of thirty days to file his Third Amended Complaint. Id. at 1.

KULVINDER S. BOPARAI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00789 - LJO - JLT

ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE ISSUED JANUARY 2, 2013

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

AN EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Doc. 12)

Case 1:12-cv-00789-LJO-JLT Document 13 Filed 01/07/13 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

Notably, this is the second extension requested by Plaintiff in which he asserts he is unable to 

comply with the Court’s order in a timely manner due to psychiatric treatment. Plaintiff has not 

explained how his removal from work impacts his ability to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 

manner. To the extent Plaintiff is unable to prosecute the action, he is advised to seek representation. 

Plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute his case with diligence. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. 

Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Failure to do so may result in 

dismissal of the action, and the Court will not hold the action in abeyance.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The order to show cause dated January 2, 2013 (Doc. 13) is DISCHARGED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 12) is GRANTED; and 

3. Plaintiff SHALL file a Third Amended Complaint on or before January 28, 2013.

Plaintiff is cautioned that further extensions of time will not be granted absent exceptional good 

cause which does not include continuing to be off work or continuing to be under the care of a 

psychiatrist.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-00789-LJO-JLT Document 13 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2