Wycinsky v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 19

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT MAGNUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than September 28, 2016, why plaintiff's claims against Christopher Magnus should not be dismissed. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 09/14/16. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JONATHAN WYCINSKY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT MAGNUS
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02873-MMC

12
13

On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed the above-titled action in the Contra Costa

14

Superior Court, naming the City of Richmond and Christopher Magnus as defendants.

15

On May 27, 2016, the case was removed to the federal district court. To date, plaintiff

16

has not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Christopher

17

Magnus. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court

18

– on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the action without

19

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time,”

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and where, as here, the complaint is removed from state court, the

21

ninety-day period runs from the date of removal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1448; Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

81(c)(1).

23

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no

24

later than September 28, 2016, why plaintiff’s claims against Christopher Magnus should

25

not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time required by Rule 4(m).

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: September 14, 2016

28

MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge