Freddie Francis v. United States of America et al

Filing 23

Order to Show Cause by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall show cause, if there be any, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to effect timely service. Plaintiff must attempt to show such cause by filing a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. Failure timely to comply with this Order may be deemed consent to the dismissal of this action. (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
FREDDIE FRANCIS, JR.
12
13
14
15
16

) NO. ED CV 17-283-SJO(E)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

17
18

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed this action on February 15,

19

2017.

On March 3, 2017, the Court issued an “Order Dismissing

20

Complaint with Leave to Amend.”

21

First Amended Complaint.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

22
23

On May 22, 2017, the Court issued an “Order Dismissing First

24

Amended Complaint with Leave to Amend.”

25

On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff

filed a Second Amended Complaint.

26
27
28

On June 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an “Order Directing
Service of Process of Second Amended Complaint by the United States

1

Marshal” authorizing service of the Summons and Second Amended

2

Complaint on Defendants:

3

(3) Dr. Wolverton, M.D.; and (4) Dr. Quinn, M.D., in their individual

4

capacities.

(1) J. Esquetini, M.D.; (2) Dr. Snell, M.D.;

5
6

Subsequently, four “Process Receipt and Return” (Form 285) forms

7

were filed.

Two forms indicate that the Marshals Service was unable

8

to serve Defendants Snell and Quinn and bear the notation “no longer

9

employed there.”

The form concerning Defendant Wolverton bears a

10

check in a box certifying that the process server allegedly was unable

11

to locate Defendant Wolverton, but also bears the name of a “Legal

12

Analyst” who purportedly was served on “10-19-18.”

13

concerning Defendant Esquetini bears no check in any of the boxes

14

provided for indicating the method of service or whether service was

15

accomplished, but also bears the name of the “Legal Analyst” who

16

purportedly was served on “10-19-18.”

17

Marshals Service advised the Court that the “Legal Analyst” assertedly

18

was served personally on January 19, 2018 and that the check in the

19

box on the form showing an inability to locate Defendant Wolverton

20

supposedly was a mistake.

The form

Upon the Court’s inquiry, the

21
22

The Court observes that personal service on a “Legal Analyst”

23

does not equate with personal service on any Defendant.

Thus, the

24

alleged presentation of the Summons and Second Amended Complaint to

25

the “Legal Analyst” would not appear to have effected proper service

26

on any Defendant.

27

///

28

///

No Defendant has appeared in the action.

2

1

Therefore, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,

2

Plaintiff shall show cause, if there be any, why the action should not

3

be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to effect timely

4

service.

5

such cause by filing a declaration signed under penalty of perjury.

6

Failure timely to comply with this Order may be deemed consent to the

7

dismissal of this action.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff must attempt to show

8
9

DATED:

March 8, 2018.

10
11
12

/s/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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