Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 47

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Defendants should not be dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/26/2013. Show Cause Response due by 9/30/2013.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

17

action. Plaintiff originally filed his action in the Kings County Superior Court on June 26, 2012.

18

Defendants paid the filing fee and removed the action on August 16, 2012.1

19

On April 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis, to serve

20
21
22

Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and
Gibson pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Plaintiff was ordered to
complete service with one-hundred twenty (120) days from the date of service of this order.

23
24
25

1

26

Pursuant to Court order dated June 9, 2010, Plaintiff was deemed to be a prisoner with three strikes or more and
therefore unable to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). However, Defendants paid the filing fee upon
removal and Plaintiff’s status is not relevant to this action.

27

2

28

Defendants Vogel, Perez, Marsical, Cortez, Vellejo, Singh, Aguirre, Wooden, Alanis, Messick, Ulit, Moon,
Kernan, Clark and Wang have already been served. They filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 17, 2013. The motion
is pending before the Court.
1

1
2

Over one-hundred and twenty days have passed and there is no evidence in the record
demonstrating that Plaintiff effected service on these Defendants.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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. There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has done so. Therefore, pursuant to Rule
4(m), Plaintiff must show cause why Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard,
Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson should not be dismissed from this action for failure to

12

effect service of process.
13
14
15

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the
date of service of this order why Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng,

16
17

Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson should not be

18

dismissed from this action for failure to effect service of process; and

19
20

2.

The failure to respond to this order, or the failure to show good cause, will result
in the dismissal of Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson, without prejudice, for failure to effect

2

service.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:

8

/s/ Dennis

August 26, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

9
10

L. Beck

9b0hied

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3