James Brian Hamilton v. Riverside Sheriff Dept et al

Filing 26

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/15/2013. (ad)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JAMES B. HAMILTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF DEPT,
ET AL.,

16
17

Defendants.

) Case No. EDCV 13-0416-DOC (DTB)
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action on January 2, 2013, in the Northern

20 District of California. On February 28, 2013, the matter was transferred to the
21 Central District of California, Eastern Division. This Court received the original file
22 and transfer order on March 6, 2013. This Court granted plaintiff’s Request to
23 Proceed In Forma Pauperis on March 14, 2013 and plaintiff’s Complaint was filed in
24 the Eastern Division on that date. Named in the Complaint as defendants were the
25 following: Riverside County Sheriff’s Department; Robert Presley Detention
26 Center/Medical; Riverside County Regional Medical Center; Transporting Deputies;
27 and Patricia Knudson, Captain RPDC.
28 / / /
1

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the Complaint

2 prior to ordering service for purposes of determining whether the action was frivolous
3 or malicious; or failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted; or sought
4 monetary relief against a defendant who was immune from such relief. After careful
5 review and consideration of the allegations of the Complaint under the relevant
6 standards, the Court found that its allegations were insufficient to state a claim on
7 which relief might be granted for violation of plaintiff's federal civil rights.
8 Accordingly, on April 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint With
9 Leave to Amend. Plaintiff was advised that if he still desired to pursue this action,
10 he was ordered to file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days remedying the
11 deficiencies discussed in the dismissal order.
12

On June 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) herein.

13 Named as defendants in the FAC are two unnamed transportation officers; one
14 unnamed intake officer; unnamed doctors named as “medical” at the Robert Presley
15 Detention facility; and Riverside General Memorial Hospital.
16

On June 20, 2013, the Court ordered service of the FAC on defendant

17 Riverside General Memorial Hospital. On July 11, 2013, plaintiff filed his Notice of
18 Submission of Documents. On August 26, 2013, the United States Marshal Service
19 returned the USM-285 form as unexecuted. As of this date, defendant Riverside
20 General Memorial Hospital has not been served with the Summons and FAC.
21

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is not served

22 within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after
23 notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that
24 defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff
25 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an
26 appropriate period. The 120-day period to serve the First Amended Complaint
27 expired on October 9, 2013.
28 / / /
2

1

To date, no proof of service has been filed, reflecting service on defendant

2 Riverside General Memorial Hospital.
3

Thus, it appears that defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital has not

4 been served. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
5 Procedure and Local Rule 41-1,
6

IT IS ORDERED that, on or before November 15, 2013, plaintiff shall show

7 good cause, if there be any, why service was not made within the 120-day period and
8 why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution as
9 to defendant Riverside General Memorial Hospital. Plaintiff shall attempt to show
10 such cause by filing a declaration, signed by plaintiff under penalty of perjury. If
11 plaintiff does not timely file such a declaration or if plaintiff fails to show good
12 cause for his failure to timely serve, the Court will recommend that this action
13 be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Fed. R.
14 Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 41-1; Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct.
15 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962).
16
17 DATED:

November 6, 2013

18
19
20

___________________________________
DAVID T. BRISTOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3