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.

Hamilton v. Riverside Sheriff Dept

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

November 6, 2013

JAMES B. HAMILTON, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF DEPT, ET AL., Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DAVID T. BRISTOW, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action on January 2, 2013, in the Northern District of California. On February 28, 2013, the matter was transferred to the Central District of California, Eastern Division. This Court received the original file and transfer order on March 6, 2013. This Court granted plaintiff's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on March 14, 2013 and plaintiff's Complaint was filed in the Eastern Division on that date. Named in the Complaint as defendants were the following: Riverside County Sheriff's Department; Robert Presley Detention Center/Medical; Riverside County Regional Medical Center; Transporting Deputies; and Patricia Knudson, Captain RPDC.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the Complaint prior to ordering service for purposes of determining whether the action was frivolous or malicious; or failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted; or sought monetary relief against a defendant who was immune from such relief. After careful review and consideration of the allegations of the Complaint under the relevant standards, the Court found that its allegations were insufficient to state a claim on which relief might be granted for violation of plaintiff's federal civil rights. Accordingly, on April 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend. Plaintiff was advised that if he still desired to pursue this action, he was ordered to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days remedying the deficiencies discussed in the dismissal order.

On June 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") herein. Named as defendants in the FAC are two unnamed transportation officers; one unnamed intake officer; unnamed doctors named as "medical" at the Robert Presley Detention facility; and Riverside General Memorial Hospital.

On June 20, 2013, the Court ordered service of the FAC on defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital. On July 11, 2013, plaintiff filed his Notice of Submission of Documents. On August 26, 2013, the United States Marshal Service returned the USM-285 form as unexecuted. As of this date, defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital has not been served with the Summons and FAC.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), 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. The 120-day period to serve the First Amended Complaint expired on October 9, 2013.

To date, no proof of service has been filed, reflecting service on defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital.

Thus, it appears that defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital has not been served. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 41-1,

IT IS ORDERED that, on or before November 15, 2013, plaintiff shall show good cause, if there be any, why service was not made within the 120-day period and why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution as to defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff shall attempt to show such cause by filing a declaration, signed by plaintiff under penalty of perjury. If plaintiff does not timely file such a declaration or if plaintiff fails to show good cause for his failure to timely serve, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); Local Rule 41-1; Link v. Wabash R.R. , 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).


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.