Boyd v. United States Department of Treasury et al

Filing 15

(1) ORDER DENYING 13 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF DELAY OF SUBMISSION AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AND (2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 1/21/2016 09:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 1/12/2016. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/7/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2015) (Entered: 12/07/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MICHAEL E BOYD,

Case No. 15-cv-03494-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

(1) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
NOTICE OF DELAY OF SUBMISSION
AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AND
(2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff filed this action on July 29, 2015. ECF 1. On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
notice of delay of submission of and issuance of summons. ECF 13. According to Plaintiff, his
ongoing appeal of an order in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
may cause “delays in the time it will take for Plaintiff to submit to the Court the Summons for
issuance in this case.” Id.
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure do not contemplate an indefinite and indeterminate
delay in the service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In fact, the newly amended Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure seek to reduce the delay in the early stages of litigation by reducing the

21

time to serve a defendant to 90 days. Id. Furthermore, it is not clear to the Court, and Plaintiff

22

does not explain, why Plaintiff’s involvement in a bankruptcy action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

23

for the Southern District of New York would cause potential delays in the service of process for

24

this action.

25

Plaintiff has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requiring defendants to be served

26

within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Plaintiff has also not shown good cause for the

27

failure. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Michael E. Boyd TO SHOW CAUSE why this case

28

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall submit a written response on or

1

before January 12, 2016 and a hearing shall be held on January 21, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. In the

2

alternative, if Plaintiff obtains summons and serves them on Defendants on or before January 12,

3

2016, the Court will dissolve the order to show cause.1 The Court advises Plaintiff that a failure to

4

respond to the order to show cause or to effect service of process on Defendants by January 12,

5

2016 will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 7, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District 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

1

Ordinarily, the Court would only give Plaintiff thirty days to effect service of process. However,
since Plaintiff is not an electronic filer, the Court is giving Plaintiff an additional five days for a
total of thirty-five days.
2