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-