UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 14, 2010
JUDITH ANN BARNETT, PLAINTIFF,
SURYADEVARA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
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 EFFECT SERVICE WITHIN ONE-HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS (Docs. 4, 13, and 17) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Judith Ann Barnett, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 14, 2008. On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect service of summonses and the complaint on Defendants within one-hundred twenty days. Plaintiff was granted a forty-five day extension of time on December 23, 2009, and a ninety-day extension of time on January 7, 2010. The deadline to effect service of process has passed, and there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff served Defendants.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part: If 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.
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to effect service within a specified time, and granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to complete service. More than one year has passed and there is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has served Defendants. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff must show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process on Defendants.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process on Defendants; and
2. The failure to respond to this order, or the failure to show good cause, will result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to effect service on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.