The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE DEFENDANTS THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Roderick Washington ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff's claims for violation of his First Amendment freedom of speech rights against defendants Early, Lamanco, and Pastor ("defendants").
On June 16, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff to complete service of process upon defendants within one-hundred twenty days. (Doc. 87.) On October 29, 2008, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to file evidence of service of process executed upon defendants. (Doc. 100.) On November 20, 2008, plaintiff submitted copies of three certified mail receipts dated July 7, 2008, addressed to C/Os Early, Lamanco, and Pastor at NKSP Litigation Dept., P.O. Box 800, Delano, CA 93216. (Docs. 101, 103.) However, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that he successfully effected service of process on any of the defendants pursuant to Rule 4, and none of the defendants has made an appearance in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Plaintiff was informed in the court's order June 16, 2008 that for each defendant, he must file either a Waiver of Service signed by the defendant, or proof that personal service has been properly effected upon the defendant. Plaintiff has not submitted a Waiver of Service or proof of personal service for any of the defendants.
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service of the summons and complaint upon defendants Early, Lamanco, and Pastor.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a written response to the court, showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service of the summons and complaint on defendants Early, Lamanco, and Pastor; and
2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...