Guillot v. Ferrell et al

Filing 11

ORDER ON RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT TERRENCE FERRELL, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/21/2017. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FRANK GUILLOT,

11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1307 AWI MJS
Plaintiff

v.
TERRENCE FERRELL, THE UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE, and DOES
1-20 inclusive,

ORDER ON RESPONSE TO SHOW
CAUSE AND ORDER GRANTING
ADDITIONAL TIME TO SERVE
DEFENDANT TERRENCE FERRELL

Defendants

16
17
18

On February 9, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be

19

dismissed for failure to serve under Rule 4(m) and failure to prosecute. See Doc. No. 8. The

20

Court noted that this case was filed on September 2, 2016, and that the Magistrate Judge had

21

warned Plaintiff about his obligations under Rule 4(m). See id.

22

On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order. See Doc. No. 9.

23

Plaintiff’s counsel states that he had been negotiating with the United States Postal Service’s legal

24

department, but the legal department has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s request to accept service

25

of process. See id. Plaintiff’s counsel states that, as of February 17, 2017, he sent the Complaint

26

out for service as to both Defendants. See id.

27
28

At 3:29 p.m. on February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Summons Returned Executed”
(“SRE”) with respect to the United States Postal Service. See Doc. No. 10.

In light of the representations of Plaintiff’s counsel, and the SRE with respect to the Postal

1
2

Service, the Court will discharge the order to show cause and not dismiss either Defendant. The

3

Court finds it significant that Plaintiff’s counsel has been in communication with the Postal

4

Service, but that the Postal Service is not responding to Plaintiff with respect to the service issue.

5

It is also significant that Plaintiff has filed the SRE, and thus served the Postal Service. As to

6

Defendant Terrence Ferrell, a significant period of time has passed since the Complaint was filed,

7

well more than the 90 days set by Rule 4(m). As the Complaint has now been sent out for service,

8

Plaintiff will be given forty-five (45) days in which to serve Ferrell and file a notice of service. If

9

service on Ferrell is not accomplished within forty-five (45) days, Plaintiff will be required to

10

request additional time in which to effectuate service.

11
12

ORDER

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

The February 9, 2017, order to show cause (Doc. No. 8) is DISCHARGED; and

15

2.

Plaintiff has forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order in which to

16

effectuate service of process on Defendant Terrence Ferrell.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2