Aaron Raiser v. City of Los Angeles et al
Filing
40
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge R. Gary Klausner for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 32 (ib)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
AARON RAISER,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CV 13-02925 RGK (RZ)
ORDER ACCEPTING FIRST
INTERIM REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
17
The Court has reviewed the file in this matter, including the January 3, 2014
18
First Interim Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff’s
19
brief Objections to the Report, filed on January 27, 2014. Stated briefly, the Report urges
20
the dismissal of several never-appearing defendants from the action, including LAPD
21
officers Jester and Lin and DOEs 1-8.
22
Plaintiff now asserts that Jester and Lin were served with process on
23
October 1, 2013. (Even that date is past his already-extended deadline for service of
24
process. The initial deadline was August 22 but was extended to September 30.) He
25
attaches copies of proofs of such service, made upon a named “Subpoena Clerk” at an
26
LAPD office in Canoga Park. Plaintiff adds that his “process server failed to send these
27
to Plaintiff until December 2013[.]” He does not explain why he took half a year, after this
28
action began in April 2013, to serve process on two public officials whose names and
1
office location he knew from the beginning. He also does not explain why he failed to file
2
the proofs until nearly the end of January, presumably prompted by the Report, instead of
3
immediately after belatedly receiving them in December. And perhaps most importantly,
4
he supplies no good cause for his failure to prosecute the action against Lin and Jester, at
5
least once he learned in December that his process server had served them.
6
As to the DOES, Plaintiff blithely argues in his Objections that he does not
7
know who they are and that he will need several months of discovery before he does. He
8
calls this “excusable neglect,” but the Court discerns only neglect. After commencing this
9
action in April 2013, Plaintiff did not even seek issuance of a Summons until four months
10
later, in August, about two weeks before his later-extended August 23 service deadline.
11
Plaintiff could and should have taken diligent steps far sooner to discover the identity of
12
the DOES. The Court will not allow defendants, including DOE defendants, to remain
13
seemingly indefinitely on the docket, unserved.
With the foregoing observations, the Court accepts the findings and
14
15
recommendations in the First Interim Report.
16
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the following defendants are dismissed
17
from the action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute as to them: James Jester, David Lin and
18
DOES 1-8.
19
DATED: February 13, 2014
20
21
22
23
R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?