Michael Euzle Jacques v. McDonald et al

Filing 30

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/3/2017. Plaintiff may discharge this order by doing any one of the following: submitting to the U.S. Marshal more complete USM-285 forms; filing a request for an extension of time to submit more complete USM-285 forms to the Court and U.S. Marshal; or filing a signed document entitled Notice of Voluntary Dismissal dismissing this action. (rh)

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

CV 16-3599-GW (KS)

Date: August 4, 2017

Michael Euzle Jacques v. McDonald, et al

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Roxanne Horan-Walker
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL
On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 (“Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 5, 2016,
the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 9.) On September 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10), which the Court also dismissed with
leave to amend (Dkt. No. 11). On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 13.) On November 17, 2016, the Court ordered that the U.S. Marshal
proceed with service of process upon Deputy Sheriff Perez, Nurse Shipman, Nurse Lopez, and
the two Doe defendants. (Dkt. No. 17.) On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed notice that he had
submitted the USM-285 forms for each defendant to the U.S. Marshal. (Dkt. No. 22.)
On June 16, 2017, the U.S. Marshal notified the Court that Deputy Sheriff Perez could
not be served because “LASD will need further information to identify correct employee.
Multiple employees with last name Perez.” (Dkt. No. 24.)
On June 26 and June 27, 2017, the U.S. Marshal notified the Court that neither Doe
defendant could be served without additional information (“i.e., first name, last name, physical
description with work assignment with date and time to identify correct employee”). (Dkt. Nos.
26-27.)
On July 18, 2017, the U.S. Marshal notified the Court that Nurse Lopez could not be
served without additional information because “this individual could not be located.” (Dkt. No.
28.) Also on July 18, 2017, the U.S. Marshal notified the Court that Nurse Shipman could not be
served because “there is no nurse with the name Shipman employed at Twin Towers or any other
facility.” (Dkt. No. 29.)

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 3

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

CV 16-3599-GW (KS)

Date: August 4, 2017

Michael Euzle Jacques v. McDonald, et al

Accordingly, to date, Plaintiff has failed to the provide the U.S. Marshal with sufficient
information to serve a single named defendant.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “If a defendant is not served
within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the
plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service
be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Neither a litigant’s pro se status nor
his lack of legal sophistication is good cause for his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997);
King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Wennihan v. AHCCCS, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1040,
1043 (D. Ariz. 2005); see also Springer v. Best, 264 F.2d 24, 25 (9th Cir. 1959) (it has never
been the court’s function “to supervise laymen in the practice of law”); Local Rule 1-3 (“Persons
appearing pro se are bound by these rules.”).
One hundred days have now passed since Plaintiff submitted the USM-285 forms, yet no
Defendant has been served. Accordingly, this action is now subject to dismissal under Rules
4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than September 3,
2017, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with Rule
4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may discharge this order by doing any
one of the following no later than September 3, 2017:
(1)
(2)
(3)

submitting to the U.S. Marshal more complete USM-285 forms and filing
copies of those forms with the Court;
filing a request for an extension of time to submit more complete USM-285
forms to the Court and U.S. Marshal; or
filing a signed document entitled Notice of Voluntary Dismissal dismissing
this action pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

\\
\\
\\

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 3

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

CV 16-3599-GW (KS)

Date: August 4, 2017

Michael Euzle Jacques v. McDonald, et al

Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely comply with this order will result in a
recommendation of dismissal of her case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b) and
Local Rule 41-1.
The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff five USM-285 forms and the service of process
instructions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

rhw

Page 3 of 3