Ricky Howard v. Paulette Finander et al

Filing 49

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Marcela and Fitter Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiffs Failure to Prosecute. Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that is, by July 25, 2017, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-1317-PA (SP)

Title

RICKY HOWARD v. PAULETTE FINANDER, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

July 11, 2017

Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly I. Carter

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Marcela and Fitter
Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Prosecute

On May 19, 2017, the court issued two orders that provided for service of the
operative Second Amended Complaint on defendants Wilder Marcela and Junaid Fitter.
One order, the Order Directing Service of Process by the United States Marshal (“Service
Order”) (docket no. 45), directed service on defendants Marcela and Fitter. The second
order, the Order Re: Service of Process by United States Marshal (“Order Re: Service”)
(docket no. 46), set forth certain steps that needed to be taken to allow the U.S. Marshal
to accomplish such service.
In particular, in the Order Re: Service, the court ordered plaintiff to complete a
separate USM-285 form for each defendant, and then send the completed forms to the
clerk of court. The clerk sent plaintiff copies of blank USM-285 forms with the Order
Re: Service, and the Order Re: Service gave plaintiff specific instructions as to how to
complete the forms. The Order Re: Service set a deadline of June 16, 2017 for plaintiff to
return to the clerk the completed USM-285 forms, and to complete and file the Notice of
Submission form attached to the Order Re: Service. The court explicitly cautioned: “If
plaintiff does not submit the completed USM-285 forms and file the Notice of Submission
by June 16, 2017, this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the court’s order and/or plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.”
More than three weeks have passed since the June 16, 2017 deadline, and plaintiff
has not returned USM-285 forms for defendants Marcela and Fitter, nor has plaintiff filed
the Notice of Submission. It therefore appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with the
court’s Order Re: Service. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s Order Re:
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-1317-PA (SP)

Date

Title

July 11, 2017

RICKY HOWARD v. PAULETTE FINANDER, et al.

Service renders this action subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order
and failure to prosecute. Moreover, the action cannot proceed against defendants
Marcela and Fitter if plaintiff does not take the steps required to serve them with the
Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that is, by July
25, 2017, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why defendants
Marcela and Fitter should not be dismissed from this case for plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute them and comply with a court order. Plaintiff may discharge this Order to
Show Cause by returning completed USM-285 forms for defendants Marcela and Fitter
and filing the Notice of Submission by July 25, 2017. Plaintiff is cautioned that his
failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed by the court
as consent to the dismissal of these defendants without prejudice.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2