Rodriguez v. Hubbard et al
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster and Freir Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M) signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/25/2014. Show Cause Response due within twenty (20) days. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,
HUBBARD, et al.,
Case No. 1:10-cv-00858 LJO DLB PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS
HUBBARD, CATE, HARRINGTON, SOTO,
GRISSOM, DAVIS, FOSTER AND FREIR
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT
TO RULE 4(M)
Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
19 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2010. This action is
20 proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington,
21 Biter, Soto, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, Garza, Wegman, Alic, Grissom,
22 Speidell, Davis, Foster, Freir, and Rankin (“Defendants”) on claims of violation of the Free
23 Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
24 Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and deliberate
25 indifference to Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 1, 2012, the
26 Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect service of summonses and the amended
27 complaint on Defendants within one-hundred twenty days. More than one-hundred twenty days
28 have passed. Defendants Biter, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, Garza, Wegman,
1 Alic, Speidell, and Rankin were served and made appearances in the action. Although it appears
2 that Plaintiff has attempted to serve Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis,
3 Foster, and Freir, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff effected service on
4 those defendants.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
If a defendant is not served within 120 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.
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to effect service within a specified time.
10 There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has done so. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(m),
11 Plaintiff must show cause why Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis,
12 Foster, and Freir should not be dismissed from the action for failure to effect service of process.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within twenty (20) days from the
15 date of service of this order why Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis,
16 Foster, and Freir should not be dismissed from the action for failure to effect service of process;
The failure to respond to this order, or the failure to show good cause, will result in
19 the dismissal of Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir
20 for failure to effect service on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 25, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?