D.C. et al v. City of Antioch et al
Filing
32
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 11/30/2017.Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/31/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/31/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
D.C., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-00719-MEJ
Plaintiffs,
7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
8
9
VALENTINO WALKER,
Defendant.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On February 13, 2017, Plaintiffs D.C., et al. filed the instant complaint. On May 11, 2017,
13
the Court explained that because it had denied Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma
14
pauperis, Plaintiffs were responsible for serving Defendants. Status Order, Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiffs
15
successfully served a number of Defendants, but did not serve Defendant Valentino Walker. Proof
16
of Service, Dkt. No. 14. On September 25, 2017, the Court reminded Plaintiffs that “[p]ursuant to
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), ‘[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
18
complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss
19
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
20
time.’” Order Dismissing Certain Defendants and Requiring Plaintiffs to Serve Defendant Walker
21
at 2, Dkt. No. 31, Dkt. No. 31 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to
22
serve Walker within 30 days of the date of that Order, or to show good cause why that deadline
23
should be extended. Id. To date, no proof of service of the summons and complaint has been
24
filed, and Plaintiffs have not requested to extend the deadline. See Dkt.
25
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, in
26
writing and no later than November 30, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to
27
serve within the time required by Rule 4(m). Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a
28
written response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiffs do not intend to prosecute, and the
1
case will be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written
2
response by the deadline above.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
7
Dated: October 31, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?