Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/18/16 ordering that defendants Lopez and Nelson are dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow court orders. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRELL D. HALL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-0324 AC P v. ORDER SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights 17 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned 19 magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). ECF No. 20 4. By order filed July 13, 2016, plaintiff was directed to complete and return to the court, 21 22 within thirty days, the USM-285 forms and copies of his complaint which were required to effect 23 service on defendants Diaz, Coblen, Lopez, and Nelson. ECF No. 88. If he was unable to 24 complete a USM-285 form for any defendant, he was to show cause why that defendant should 25 not be dismissed for failure to complete service. Id. Plaintiff returned completed forms for 26 defendants Coplin1 and Diaz (ECF No. 89), but did not submit forms for defendants Lopez and 27 28 1 When ordered to provide additional information on the unserved defendants, counsel stated that (continued) 1 1 Nelson or show cause why they should not be dismissed. Plaintiff was given an additional thirty 2 days to show cause why defendants Lopez and Nelson should not be dismissed. ECF No. 104. 3 He was also advised that he could alternatively file a notice of voluntary dismissal of his claims 4 against Lopez and Nelson without prejudice if he was no longer seeking to pursue those claims at 5 this time. Id. Thirty days have now passed and plaintiff has not responded to the order. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Lopez and Nelson are 7 dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow 8 court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 110. 9 DATED: October 18, 2016 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 the jail was unable to identify a correctional employee by the name of “Coblen,” but had identified an officer “Coplin.” ECF No. 59. Plaintiff was directed to complete the USM-285 form for officer Coplin if he believed Coplin was the same individual he had made claims against. ECF No. 88. 28 2

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?