Marotz v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 40

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE. Show Cause Response due by 12/9/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/25/13. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
WILLIAM LEON MAROTZ,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL,

15

No. C-13-01677 DMR

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

On April 12, 2013, Defendant City of San Francisco removed this lawsuit to this court.

18

[Docket No. 1.] To date, the individually-named Defendants, the San Francisco Police Department,

19

and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department have not appeared in this matter; it appears that none of

20

these Defendants have been properly served. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

21

requires this court to dismiss the action without prejudice against these Defendants if they are not

22

served within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to

23

respond by December 9, 2013 and explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

24

timely serve the above Defendants. Failure to respond by December 9, 2013 may result in dismissal

25

of this action without prejudice, with respect to the above Defendants.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2013
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge