Andres Santana v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 295

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff, no later than April 29, 2011, shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice against defendants Scott, Campbell, Rose, Barrera, Bender, Moreno, Toon and Hernandez for failure to effect service of process within the time specified in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (mr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRES SANTANA,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
LEE BACA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 04-2872 ABC (FMO)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

16
17

On April 30, 2004, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint (“Complaint”)

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which former United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson

19

dismissed with leave to amend on May 10, 2004. (See Court’s Order of May 10, 2004, at 1 & 5).

20

On June 4, 2004, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants Lee Baca

21

(“Baca”), Detective Michael E. Scott (“Scott”), Sergeant Louis (“Louis”), Sergeant Cross (“Cross”),

22

Sergeant Carter (“Carter”), Sergeant Campbell (“Campbell”), Deputy Barrera (“Barrera”), Deputy

23

Rose (“Rose”), Deputy Bender (“Bender”), Deputy Moreno (“Moreno”), Deputy Lawler I (“Lawler

24

I”), Deputy Lawler II (“Lawler II”), Deputy Toon (“Toon”), Deputy Felix (“Felix”), Deputy Hernandez

25

(“Hernandez”), and various Doe defendants.

26

On June 17, 2004, Magistrate Judge Johnson ordered the United States Marshal to serve

27

defendants Baca, Scott, Louis, Rose and Cross, and on August 17, 2006, Magistrate Judge

28

Johnson ordered the United States Marshal to serve defendants Carter, Campbell, Barrera,

1

Bender, Moreno, Lawler I, Lawler II, Toon, Felix and Hernandez. (Court’s Order of June 14, 2004,

2

at 1; Court’s Order of August 17, 2006, at 1).

3

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f a

4

defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its

5

own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant

6

or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). It appears from the

7

record that plaintiff has failed to complete service on defendants Scott, Campbell, Rose, Barrera,

8

Bender, Moreno, Toon and Hernandez, none of whom have appeared in this action.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff, no later than April 29, 2011, shall

10

show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice against

11

defendants Scott, Campbell, Rose, Barrera, Bender, Moreno, Toon and Hernandez for failure to

12

effect service of process within the time specified in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

13

Procedure. Failure to file timely a written response to this Order may result in dismissal of this

14

action against defendants Scott, Campbell, Rose, Barrera, Bender, Moreno, Toon and Hernandez

15

for failure to effect service of process within the time specified by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules

16

of Civil Procedure and for failure to prosecute.

17

Dated the 13th day of April, 2011.

18
19

/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2