Gleason v. Glasscock, et al

Filing 26

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/4/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before April 25, 2011, why defendant Glasscock should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process wit hin the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that defendant Glasscock and/or this action be dismissed for failure to follow court orders, for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), and/or for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). (Duong, D)

(PS) Gleason v. Glasscock, et al

Doc. 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE vs. ANNE GLASSCOCK; THE CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICK GLEASON, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2030 MCE EFB PS

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 31, 2011, the district judge adopted the undersigned's recommendation that defendant California Horse Racing Board's dismissal motion be granted, and dismissed the California Horse Racing Board from this action. Dckt. No. 25. Accordingly, the only defendant remaining in this action is Anne Glasscock. It does not appear from the court file that plaintiff has yet properly effected service of process on defendant Glasscock. Plaintiff has not filed an executed summons as to Glasscock and Glasscock contends that she has not been served. See Dckt. No. 2 at 2; Dckt. No. 7 at 1, n.1. Accordingly, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why Glasscock should not be dismissed, and as a result, this case be dismissed in its entirety, for failure to effect service of process within 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 ("Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."); see also L.R. 183 ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules."); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). Failure to timely comply with this order may result in sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to follow court orders. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before April 25, 2011, why defendant Glasscock should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). 2. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that defendant Glasscock and/or this action be dismissed for failure to follow court orders, for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), and/or for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). SO ORDERED. DATED: April 4, 2011.

2