UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 19, 2013
EDWARD LEE THOMAS,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng 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 (ECF No. 9) FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Edward Lee Thomas ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 31, 2012. On September 7, 2012,
the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect service of
summonses and the complaint on Defendants Bryant, Desilagua, Goumas,
Hartley, Lopez, Ndoh, and Does (collectively, "Defendants")*fn1
within one-hundred twenty days. More than one-hundred twenty
days have passed. There is no evidence Plaintiff has effected service
on Defendants as ordered.
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. There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has done so. 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 fourteen (14) 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 Bryant, Desilagua, Goumas, Hartley, Lopez, Ndoh, and Does; 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 Bryant, Desilagua, Goumas, Hartley, Lopez, Ndoh, and Does.
IT IS SO ORDERED.