Hanna v. Chudy et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY HANNA,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J. CHUDY, G. ELLIS, C. HAMMOND, )
and D. FOSTON,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. C 11-0862 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
PROOFS OF SERVICE

(Docket No. 24)

17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights complaint

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Section 504 of

20

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning the conditions of his confinement at CTF - Soledad.

21

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file proofs of service on all

22

Defendants.

23

On May 25, 2011, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that he

24

alleged cognizable claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and a violation

25

of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The Court further recognized that, because Plaintiff had

26

paid the filing fee, he could not rely upon the United States Marshal for service upon the named

27

Defendants. Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court, by July 26, 2011, with proofs of service

28

of the summons and complaint on all the Defendants, or show good cause why they should not
Order Granting Extension of Time for Plaintiff to File Proofs of Service-2
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Hanna862psrveot

1
2

be dismissed.
On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed with the Court “Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

3

of Summons and Complaint,” as well as a copy of the summons he presumably sent to the

4

Defendants. However, these documents did not demonstrate that the Defendants were properly

5

served pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff filed several motions

6

requesting default judgment, and a special appointment for the Marshal to serve Defendants. On

7

September 19, 2011, the Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff another extension of time to file

8

proofs of service as it was apparent he misunderstood what was required. On October 21, 2011,

9

Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time.

10

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff a final extension of time. Plaintiff must file within thirty

11

days from the filing date of this order all proofs of service upon Defendants, or show good cause

12

why they should be not dismissed. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the unserved

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

11/14/11
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Extension of Time for Plaintiff to File Proofs of Service-2
2
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Hanna862psrveot