Templeton v. Davis, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing plaintiff to show cause, in writing, the following: 1) Whether she intends to pursue this action; 2) Her explanation for her failure to appear at the status conference on January 24, 2016; and 3) Her explanation for her failure to effectuate service of process upon the Defendants. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/24/2017. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON TEMPLETON, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:16-cv-01491-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR v. JAMES DAVIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff Sharon Templeton filed a complaint against James Davis, 18 Joyce Fields-Keene, the Central California Faculty Medical Group, University Neurosurgeons, 19 Community Medical Centers, and Community Regional Medical Center. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 20 paid the $400 filing fee on the same date. On October 11, 2016, this Court issued an order 21 explaining that “[b]ecause Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, it is Plaintiff’s 22 responsibility to effect service of summons and the Complaint on Defendants.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) 23 The order further explained how to effectuate service of process upon the Defendants and warned 24 25 26 Plaintiff that her “failure to timely complete service of the complaint on Defendants may result in dismissal of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).”1 (Id. at 1-3.) 27 1 28 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the 1 1 2 3 Summonses were issued on October 11, 2016 for each of the named Defendants in this case. (ECF Nos. 3-8.) No proof of service has been filed with the Court as of the date of this order. 4 On October 11, 2016, this Court set an initial scheduling conference for January 24, 2017 5 6 at 09:30 a.m. (ECF No. 2.) As the hearing approached, the Court converted the initial scheduling 7 conference to status conference because it noticed that service of process had not yet been 8 effectuated. (ECF No. 10.) 9 10 11 This Court held the status conference on January 24, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiff failed to appear for the hearing and did not file any request for a continuance or otherwise notify the Court that she would not be able to appear at the conference. Accordingly, the Court orders that 12 13 14 Plaintiff show cause why sanctions, up to and including dismissal, should not be issued for her failure to comply with this Court’s orders and for her failure to prosecute this case. The Court 15 further orders that Plaintiff show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 16 effectuate service of process in accordance with its October 11, 2016 order (ECF No. 9) and the 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 19 No later than January 31, 2016, Plaintiff is ORDERED file a written response to this Order to Show Cause indicating: 1) she intends to pursue this action; 2) her explanation for her 20 21 failure to appear at the status conference on January 24, 2016; and 3) her explanation for her 22 failure to effectuate service of process upon the Defendants. 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 28 action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 2 1 2 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this Order as set forth above may result in the dismissal of this action. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: January 24, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?