Arogant Hollywood v. City of South Pasadena et al

Filing 19

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish regarding order to show cause re possible dismissal under Rule 4(m). Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/31/2018. (ec)

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

CV 18-5607-JGB (GJS)

Title

Arogant Hollywood v. City of South Pasadena, et al.

Present:

Date

October 15, 2018

Hon. Gail J. Standish, United States Magistrate Judge
E. Carson

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order To Show Cause Re: Possible Dismissal
Under Rule 4(m)

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action [Dkt. 1]. On July 3,
2018, the Court issued its Initial Order In Civil Rights Case [Dkt. 8, “Initial Order”].
Among other things, the Initial Order cautioned Plaintiff as follows:
Plaintiff must serve the summons and complaint on all named
Defendants in this action within 90 days from the filing date of
the Complaint, that is, by September 23, 2018. Plaintiff must
file proof of service within 15 days of the date of service. If
service is not completed within 90 days from the filing of the
Complaint, the Court may dismiss this action in whole or
against unserved defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Service of
the summons and Complaint must comply with Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Initial Order at 4.)
As of September 23, 2018, no proof of service had been filed, no Defendant had
appeared in this action, and no evidence existed that Plaintiff had made any effort to
serve any of the Defendants with process. In fact, the docket shows that Plaintiff did not

Initials of preparer _efc___
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 18-5607-JGB (GJS)

Date

Title

October 15, 2018

Arogant Hollywood v. City of South Pasadena, et al.

obtain the Summons – the critical item for effective service of process, until September
24, 2018, after the Rule(m) period had expired.
The record demonstrates that Plaintiff did not serve any Defendant, or attempt to
do so, within the Rule 4(m) period. Thus, it appears that dismissal of this action pursuant
to Rule 4(m) may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed due to his failure to effect service of
process within the Rule 4(m) deadline. If Plaintiff wishes this action to proceed, then by
no later than October 31, 2018, he shall file a response to this Order, in which he must:
request an extension of the Rule 4(m) period; explain why he has not timely effected
service of process; and set forth good cause for his noncompliance with Rule 4(m) and
this Court’s Initial Order. Absent a timely response establishing good cause, this action
may be dismissed under Rule 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of preparer _efc___
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2