Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01018/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01018-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

MARVA L. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1018-LAB (DHB)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

SLOAN D. GIBSON, acting Secretary of

Veterans Affairs,

Defendant.

On August 4, 2014, the Court screened and dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order of dismissal directed Plaintiff Marva Smith to file an

amended complaint by September 1, 2014. That order cautioned Smith that if she failed to

amend within the time permitted, the case would be dismissed without leave to amend. On

September 5, Smith moved for an extension of time to amend, stating that she had been

unable to work on her complaint for less than a week. Although she did not request a

particular amount of time, the Court granted an extension until September 29, 2014,

cautioning her that if she needed more time, she should file an ex parte motion well in

advance of the September 29 deadline and that she must show extraordinarily good cause. 

On the afternoon of September 29, Plaintiff called chambers, requesting a hearing

date for a motion for extension of time to amend. Because hearing dates are not given for

ex parte motions, see Standing Order in Civil Cases, ¶ 8 (“All miscellaneous administrative

requests and ex parte applications are considered on the papers and may not be set for a

- 1 - 14cv1018

Case 3:14-cv-01018-LAB-DHB Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 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

hearing.”), she was told simply to file her motion. Plaintiff has, however, not filed either an

amended complaint, nor a request for extension of time, nor anything else.

The action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND, both for failure to obey the Court’s orders, see Civil Local Rule 83.1(a), and for

failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (noting federal

trial courts’ power to dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv1018

Case 3:14-cv-01018-LAB-DHB Document 8 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 2