Carson v. Gissi et al

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 12/31/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 11/18/21. (tl)

Case 5:21-cv-04053-JAR-KGG Document 8 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TINA CARSON

)
)
)
) Case No. 5:21-cv-4053-JAR-KGG
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

BLAIR T. GISSI, et. al,
Defendants.

NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On August 18, 2021, Plaintiff, Tina Carson, filed a Complaint naming as
Defendants Blair T. Gissi, Faye Servicing LLC, Richard Beheler, Gregory Funding, Ajax
Mortgage Loan Trust 2018F, US Bank National Association, and James T. McIntyre.
(Doc. 1). Plaintiff attached a Certificate of Service to the Complaint which indicated that
“a copy was mailed out to Plaintiff’s attorney on record and/or by electronic filing by the
clerk.” (Id., at 16). The District Judge noted that she circled the word “or.” The
Certificate of Service also indicated she mailed the Complaint to Defendants McIntyre,
Beheler, and Gissi, as well as the Consumer Protection Bureau, “Judge Herron,” and
“former Judge Nugent.” (Id.). No summons has issued.
Plaintiff moved for a “Judicial Temporary Restraining Order—Permanent—
Injunction & Demand for an Emergency Hearing Because of the Pending Lawsuit in
Federal Court.” (Doc. 3). The District Judge denied the motion on August 20, 2021. The
District Judge further ordered that Plaintiff “effectuate service of the Summons,
1

Case 5:21-cv-04053-JAR-KGG Document 8 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2

Complaint, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, as well as [the memorandum
and order denying the motion], on all Defendants, as required by the federal and local
rules.” (Doc. 6, at 4). Plaintiff filed a revised civil cover sheet (Doc. 7) on August 24,
2021 but has otherwise taken no further action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) governs the time limit for service. Rule 4(m)
provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time.” Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) provides that the court may dismiss an action
for failure to prosecute. Here, Plaintiff has not effectuated service of the summons on any
Defendant in this case and more than 90 days has passed since the complaint was filed.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not complied with a previous order of the Court ordering Plaintiff
to effectuate service of the motion for temporary restraining order and the memorandum
and order denying that motion.
Accordingly, the Court orders Tina Carson to show cause in writing by December
31, 2021, why the undersigned magistrate judge should not recommend that its claims be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) and/or Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 18, 2021, at Wichita, Kansas.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

Kenneth G. Gale
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2