Hopson v. Kapiniaris, et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/29/14 ORDERING, on February 25, 2014, the court dismissed defendant Frank Kapiniaris from the action for plaintiff's failure to timely effect service. (ECF No. 13 .) The court also directed plaint iff to seek an entry of default and move for a default judgment against defendant Luis Angel Ramirez Gomez within thirty days of the date of that order. (Id.) The court noted that "failure to do so [would] result in dismissal of the action." ; (Id.) To date, plaintiff has not sought an entry of default and has yet to move for a default judgment against defendant Luis Angel Ramirez Gomez. Because the thirty days within which plaintiff was directed to seek an entry of default elapsed on March 27, 2014, the court dismisses this action and orders the clerk to close the case. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM HOPSON,

No. 2:13-cv-01561-KJM-DAD

12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16

v.

ORDER

LUIS ANGEL RAMIREZ GOMEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

The court has previously issued plaintiff two orders to show cause. (ECF Nos.

19

8, 10.) In the first, erroneously stating that defendants had been served on July 31, 2013, the

20

court ordered plaintiff to explain why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to

21

prosecute. (ECF No. 8.) Responding, plaintiff filed a declaration attesting that as of January

22

29, 2014, “plaintiff’s process server was still attempting to perfect service.” (Malakauskas

23

Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 9.) Accordingly, the court discharged the order. (ECF No. 10.)

24

In discharging the first order, however, the court simultaneously issued a

25

second, ordering plaintiff to explain why he had failed to timely effect service as required under

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id.) In response, on February 13, 2014, plaintiff filed

27

only a proof of service showing that one of the two named defendants, Luis Angel Ramirez

28

Gomez, had been served on August 2, 2013. (ECF No. 11.)
1

1

Accordingly, on February 25, 2014, the court dismissed defendant Frank

2

Kapiniaris from the action for plaintiff’s failure to timely effect service. (ECF No. 13.) The

3

court also directed plaintiff to seek an entry of default and move for a default judgment against

4

defendant Luis Angel Ramirez Gomez within thirty days of the date of that order. (Id.) The

5

court noted that “failure to do so [would] result in dismissal of the action.” (Id.)

6

To date, plaintiff has not sought an entry of default and has yet to move for a

7

default judgment against defendant Luis Angel Ramirez Gomez. Because the thirty days

8

within which plaintiff was directed to seek an entry of default elapsed on March 27, 2014, the

9

court dismisses this action and orders the clerk to close the case.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 29, 2014.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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