Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04090/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04090-8/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TAZMA DIWALI ANAYA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04090-WHO 

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 89

Plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss her Third Amended Complaint. Docket No. 89. This is plaintiff’s twelfth request for an 

extension of time to respond to a defense motion in this case. The reasons plaintiff states in 

support of her current request are essentially the same as in her prior requests: plaintiff has a hard 

time meeting deadlines given her multiple sclerosis symptoms and the stress of responding to this 

case and pending criminal charges in San Francisco further exacerbate her MS symptoms. Docket 

No. 89. 

I am sympathetic to plaintiff’s condition. As a result, I have been extremely lenient with 

plaintiff and have granted almost every request for additional time. But my leniency has not 

resulted in any progress in this case and the delay is beginning to burden defendants. Plaintiff 

filed this case and needs – to the best of her ability – to move it forward by responding to 

defendant’s motions. I will grant plaintiff one last extension of time. Plaintiff’s opposition to 

defendant’s motion to dismiss is due by Wednesday March 4, 2015. Defendant’s reply is due by 

March 11, 2015. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is reset to Wednesday March 25, 2015 at 

2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 on the 17th Floor of the courthouse. No further extensions of time will 

be granted. 

Case 3:13-cv-04090-WHO Document 90 Filed 02/17/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If plaintiff fails to file her opposition by March 4, 2015, I may dismiss this case for failure 

to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2015 

______________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-04090-WHO Document 90 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 2