Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04077/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04077-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick R. Donahoe
Defendant
Iliana Lacayo
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ILIANA LACAYO,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK R. DONAHOE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-04077-JSC 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 50

In this postal-worker employment suit, Plaintiff Iliana Lacayo (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis, filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on July 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 

49.) Defendant Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe (“Defendant”) moved to dismiss the TAC 

on August 10, 2015. (Dkt. No. 50.) Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to the motion. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s brief reply noted only that its motion was unopposed. (Dkt. No. 51.) 

This is not the first time that Plaintiff has missed a filing deadline; she filed her opposition to 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint nearly two weeks late. (Dkt. No. 

45.) Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the Court’s own preference to resolve 

matters on the merits, the Court will give Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to the motion to 

dismiss. Plaintiff’s opposition is due by September 14, 2015. Failure to respond to the motion 

may result in the motion being granted and/or the action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04077-JSC Document 52 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 1