P.Y.M.T., et al v. City of Fresno, et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS; FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE. ORDER VACATING APRIL 6, 2017 MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/27/2017. (Lafata, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

P.Y.M.T., a minor, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00817-AWI-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO SERVE DEFENDANTS
ORDER VACATING APRIL 6, 2017
MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs P.Y.M.T., a minor, Maria Carrillo, and Antonio Moreno initiated this

20

action on June 11, 2016 against the City of Fresno, Fresno Police Department (“FPD”),

21

FPD Officer Colin Lewis, and FPD Officer Jordan Wamhoff. (ECF No. 1.) On June 13,

22

2016, summons issued as to Officers Lewis and Wamhoff. (ECF Nos. 4 and 5.) An initial

23

scheduling conference was set. (ECF No. 6.) The scheduling conference was continued

24

several times due to Plaintiffs’ apparent failure to serve Defendants. (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9.)

25

Plaintiffs were reminded of the obligation to serve Defendants in compliance with

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id.) To date, the docket reflects no efforts to serve

27

Defendants.

28

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, in pertinent part: “If a defendant is

2

not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own

3

after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that

4

defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows

5

good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate

6

period.”

7

Here, service of the complaint is nearly 200 days overdue. Accordingly, it is

8

HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall

9

either serve Defendants or show cause why this action should not be dismissed without

10

prejudice for failure to serve Defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m). In light of the

11

status of this case, the mandatory scheduling conference is HEREBY VACATED and will

12

be reset, if necessary, following Plaintiffs’ response to this order.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2017

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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