Jackson v. Southwest Countrywide 2007 Corporate Pass-Through Certificate Series 2007, et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/12/2017 ORDERING that the 5 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Plaintiff shall serve the defendants on or before 7/14/2017. The 6/16/2017 Status Conference is CONTINUED 8/11/2017 at 10:00 AM in C ourtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. On or before 7/28/2017, plaintiff shall file a status report. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEPHEN JACKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-3032 GEB DB PS

v.

ORDER

SOUTHWEST COUNTRYWIDE 2007
CORPORATE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATE SERIES, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Stephen Jackson, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on December 28,

19

2016, by filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was

20

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

21

On May 5, 2017, plaintiff failed to file a timely status report.
Accordingly, on May 11, 2017, the court issued an order to show cause as to why this

22
23

action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 5.) That order also noted that

24

the court’s docket reflected no appearance by any defendant nor any proof of service on any

25

defendant. On May 23, 2017, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 6.)

26

Therein, plaintiff requests “an additional 45 days to serve Defendants,” and a continuation of the

27

June 16, 2017 status conference. (Id. at 3.)

28

////
1

1

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant must be

2

dismissed if service of the summons and complaint is not accomplished on the defendant within

3

90 days after the complaint was filed. However, if “the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure,

4

the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. “Good cause” is

5

generally equated with “diligence.” Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th

6

Cir. 1987). A showing of good cause requires more than inadvertence or mistake of counsel. Id.

7

“[A]t a minimum, good cause means excusable neglect.” In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th

8

Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted).

9

Here, plaintiff’s request evidences diligence despite plaintiff’s inability to serve a

10

defendant. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) In this regard, the undersigned finds goods cause to extend the time

11

for service.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The May 11, 2017 order to show cause (ECF No. 5) is discharged;

14

2. Plaintiff shall serve the defendants on or before July 14, 2017;

15

3. The June 16, 2017 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is continued to Friday,

16

August 11, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

17

California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;

18
19
20
21

4. On or before July 28, 2017, plaintiff shall file a status report in compliance with the
April 12, 2017 order; and
5. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed.

22
Dated: June 12, 2017
23
24
25
26
27

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\jackson3032.cont.hrg

28
2