Marotz v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 50

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 40 AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/18/13. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

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 DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE [DOCKET NO. 40] AND
EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE

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. On November 25,

20

2013, this court ordered Plaintiff to respond by December 9, 2013 and explain why this case should

21

not be dismissed against the above Defendants for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve them, and noted

22

that failure to respond by December 9, 2013 could result in dismissal of this action without

23

prejudice, with respect to the above Defendants. [Docket No. 40.]

24

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on December 5, 2013. [Docket No. 43.]

25

In his response, Plaintiff notes that he has filed two certificates of service, the first showing that the

26

“amended complaint” was served via hand-delivery on the “counter person at 850 Bryant Street San

27

Francisco, Hall of Justice, Legal Department” on November 7, 2013; and the second showing that

28

1

the “amended complaint” was served via hand-delivery on the “counter person at City Hall, San

2

Francisco, Room 456,” also on November 7, 2013. See Docket Nos. 37, 38.

3

This service is improper because, inter alia, there is no indication that Plaintiff has ever

4

attempted to serve a summons on the above Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“A summons

5

must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons

6

and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to

7

the person who makes service.”). Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires this

8

court to dismiss the action without prejudice against these Defendants if they are not served within

9

120 days after the complaint is filed, unless Plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to service, in

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

which case “the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”
In his response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, noted that his

12

failure to serve was the result of his “deteriorated emotional health, naivete, and inexperience, and

13

not [] lack of respect or effort.” The court notes that it has referred Plaintiff to the resources

14

available to pro se plaintiffs, including this court’s Pro Se Handbook and Legal Help Center, both of

15

which may provide Plaintiff assistance in this matter. Plaintiff indicated he was aware of these

16

resources. Given the circumstances, the court grants Plaintiff until January 10, 2014 to properly

17

serve the above Defendants.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2013
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2