Negrete v. Curkan

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANT and ORDER VACATING APRIL 21, 2017 MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ; FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/5/2017. (Lafata, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JORGE NEGRETE,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
LINDA LEE CURKAN,

14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00956-LJO-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO SERVE DEFENDANT
ORDER VACATING APRIL 21, 2017
MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Defendant.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff Jorge Negrete initiated this action on July 5, 2016 against Defendant

19

Linda Lee Curkan. (ECF No. 1.) A summons issued the same day. (ECF No. 2.) An initial

20

scheduling conference was set. (ECF No. 3.) The scheduling conference was continued

21

several times due to Plaintiffs’ apparent failure to serve Defendants. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6.)

22

Plaintiff was reminded of the obligation to serve Defendant in compliance with Federal

23

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

24

Defendant.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

period.”

4

Here, service of the complaint is more than 180 days overdue. Accordingly, it is

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 5, 2017

/s/

13

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2