Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Flores v. Mnuchin

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 15, 2017

MARIE FLORES, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN MNUCHIN, Defendant.

          ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS 14-DAY DEADLINE

         Marie Flores (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for race discrimination and retaliation.

         A. Failure to Appear at Mandatory Conference

         On August 14, 2017, the Court set an Initial Scheduling Conference for November 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 4.) The August 14 Order stated that “[a]ttendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory for all parties. ... If a party is not represented by counsel, they must appear personally at the Scheduling Conference.” (Id. at 2.) The Order also specifically provided as follows:

Should counsel or a party appearing pro se fail to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, or fail to comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte hearing may be held and contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.

(Id. at 7.)

         The mandatory conference was held on November 14, 2017, but Plaintiff did not appear.

         Accordingly, Plaintiff IS ORDERED to show cause why she should not be sanctioned up to and including dismissal for failing to appear at the Initial Scheduling Conference. Plaintiff shall file a written show cause response within 14 days of this Order.

         B. Failure to Effectuate Service of Process

         Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 90 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. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

         The Complaint initiating this case was filed on June 22, 2017. Summons was issued on August 14, 2017. However, there is no indication that the defendant has been served in this case. Nor has Plaintiff requested more time to effectuate service or attempted to show good cause for the failure.

         Accordingly, Plaintiff IS ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service in accordance with the 90-day time limit in Rule 4(m). Plaintiff shall file a written show cause response within 14 days of this Order.

         C. Federal Rule of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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