Arrendondo v. Neven et al

Filing 79

ORDER re 77 Motion for Summons and Marshal's Service to Complete Service of the Complaint. The Complaint against the remaining defendants is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with FRCP 4(m) for failing to effect service within the all owed time. Furthermore, extending the time to serve the summons and complaint would be futile, because the Court would dismiss the claims in accordance with the Court's prior order 65 . Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 7/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

ARMIS ARRENDONDO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2;09-CV-2158-KJD-VCF

D.W. NEVEN, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summons and Marshal’s Service to

17

Complete Service of the Complaint (#77). On June 13, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof

18

of service of the summons and complaint in accordance with Rule 4(m) no later than July 2, 2012.

19

The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the claims against all remaining defendants

20

should not be dismissed in accordance with the Court’s prior order (#65).

21

Rather than showing proof of service, Plaintiff now seeks leave to have new summons issued

22

and served by the U.S. Marshal’s Office. Plaintiff’s motion asserts that they remain unserved,

23

because no summons have been issued for these defendants. However, the record clearly reflects that

24

on December 15, 2011, summons were issued for the remaining defendants with the correct

25

addresses (#56). Finally, Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the complaint against the remaining

26

defendants should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in the Court’s prior order (#65). Therefore,

1

the complaint against the remaining defendants is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failing to effect service within the allowed time.

3

Furthermore, extending the time to serve the summons and complaint would be futile, because the

4

Court would dismiss the claims in accordance with the Court’s prior order (#65).

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

16
DATED this ______ day of July 2012.

7
8
9
10

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2