Sarah Diane Slice v. City of Glendale et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/13/2015. (mz)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

SARAH DIANE SLICE,

) NO. CV 15-1079-FMO (MAN)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF GLENDALE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)

16
17
18

On February 13, 2015, plaintiff Sarah Diane Slice filed a civil

19

rights complaint, which names the City of Glendale and several others as

20

defendants (“Complaint”).

21

arrested her in January of 2014.

She alleges that Glendale police falsely

22
23

On February 17, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Margaret A.

24

Nagle issued an Order (“February 17 Order”) which, inter alia, reminded

25

plaintiff that, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure (“Rule 4(m)”), she had 120 days from the filing date of the

27

Complaint in which to effect service of process on defendants.

28

February 17 Order cautioned plaintiff that, if service of process was

The

1

not completed within that 120 days, this action could be dismissed.

2
3

The Rule 4(m) deadline ordinarily would have been June 13, 2015.

4

The deadline became June 15 instead, because June 13, 2015 was a

5

Saturday.

6

any further action by plaintiff, and no defendant has appeared. Indeed,

7

as of June 25, 2015, the last item on the docket is the February 17

8

Order.

9

action.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

The deadline passed without

It appears that plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this

10
11

Rule 4(m) provides that, if service of the summons and complaint is

12

not made upon a defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint,

13

federal district courts have the authority to sua sponte dismiss an

14

action without prejudice, after notice to the plaintiff.

15

a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve the complaint

16

within that time frame, the Court must extend the time for accomplishing

17

service.

18

Treasury, 1998 WL 986245, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 1998).

19

of establishing good cause is on the plaintiff.

20

cause” exception to Rule 4(m) applies “only in limited circumstances”

21

and is not satisfied by “inadvertent error or ignorance of the governing

22

rules.”

If, however,

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m); see also Muhammed v. Department of

Id., at *4.

The burden
The “good

Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992).

23
24

Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action

25

should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m).

26

13, 2015, plaintiff must file a response to this Order if she wishes

27

this case to continue.

28

detail, why she has failed to proceed with service of process efforts

By no later than July

In her response, plaintiff must explain, in

2

1

and to prosecute this case, and she must establish good cause for her

2

inaction.

3

or if she does not establish good cause in her response, the case may be

4

dismissed, without prejudice, for the reasons set forth above.

If plaintiff fails to file a timely response to this Order,

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

DATED: June 25, 2015.
______________________________
MARGARET A. NAGLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3