Gregorio Funtanilla v. Williams et al

Filing 44

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE within Twenty-One Days Why this Action should not be Dismissed Against the Twelve Unserved Defendants for Failure to Effect Service of Process signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR.,

11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
SERVICE OF PROCESS

v.
ECF No. 42

13
14

ROMAN W. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS

15
16

Plaintiff Gregorio Funtanilla, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended

19

complaint against Defendants Roman W. Williams, Jesuit S. Manson, K. Turner, D. Ibarra, O. A.

20

Ybarra, M.A. Baires, J. Lias, R. Gomez, Nola Grannis, Angela Romanello, Kelly Santoro, Derral G.

21

Adams, and Ken Clark for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the

22

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff was

23

instructed with service of process and directed to effect service on these thirteen Defendants within

24

120 days. ECF No. 24.

25

On April 26, 2012, a summons was returned executed on Defendant Roman Williams. ECF

26

No. 39. As of the date of this order, no indication of service has been submitted as to the other

27

twelve Defendants. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants must

28

be served within 120 days. On September 14, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause why
1

1

this action should not be dismissed against the twelve unserved Defendants for failure to effect

2

service of process. On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his response. On November 13, 2012, the

3

Court ordered Plaintiff to re-attempt service of process. Plaintiff was granted an additional sixty

4

(60) days. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not submitted any documents demonstrating that

5

he has served process.

6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to show cause within twenty-one

7

(21) days why this action should not be dismissed against the twelve unserved Defendants for failure

8

to effect service of process. Failure to timely respond or otherwise show cause will result in

9

dismissal of this action.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 11, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

DEAC_Signature-END:

14

3b142a

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2