Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. Talisman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 12, 2008

RODOLFO C. ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. TALISMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur L. Alarcón United States Circuit Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff has named Dr. Talisman and Rn. Leblue as Defendants in this action. (Doc. 1). On May 5, 2008, this Court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process on Talisman and Leblue. (Doc. 15). Defendant Talisman filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint on June 26, 2008. (Doc. 18).

On June 9, 2008, the summons directed to be served on Defendant Rn. Leblue was returned unexecuted. (Doc. 17). The remark on the "process receipt and return," filed by the U.S. Marshal, indicates that Rn. Leblue is "not in CDC locator database. No longer employed at facility." Id. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

SeeRule 4(m).

Accordingly, Plaintiff IS HEREBY ORDERED to file a response to this order, on or before October 3, 2008, showing cause why the Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice against Defendant Leblue.

20080912

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.