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).

Download PDF
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?