Robinson v. Howell

Filing 10

ORDER - Plaintiff shall file on or before February 14, 2015, proof of service of Plaintiff's complaint upon defendant Howell, or good cause is shown why such service was not made prior to the deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 12/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 KIRT D. ROBINSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SHANNON HOWELL, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________) 3:14-cv-00149-MMD-WGC NOTICE AND ORDER 14 15 ORDER 16 In this case, Plaintiff has sued Shannon Howell for alleged civil rights deprivations. (Doc. # 4.)1 17 After leave was provided Plaintiff to proceed, Plaintiff was provided instructions with regard to service 18 on the defendant. (Doc. # 3.) Because no service had been effected on defendant Howell, this court 19 issued its notice regarding possible dismissal of Plaintiff's action. (Doc. # 7.) 20 Plaintiff responded to the court's Rule 4(m) notice by attaching several documents from what 21 appear to be attempts at service upon Ms. Howell and also upon a "Mr. Nagel." "Mr. Nagel," however, 22 is not a defendant in this case; he is only named in another of Plaintiff's civil rights cases, 3:13-cv- 23 00422-MMD-WGC. The service documents as to Mr. Nagel in this case are irrelevant.2 24 With regard to the one person who is a defendant in this case, Shannon Howell, Plaintiff was 25 advised in case no. 3:13-cv-00422-MMD-WGC that Ms. Howell no longer works at the Washoe County 26 Detention facility, and that when she did work there, she was an independent contractor associated with 27 28 1 Refers to court's docket number. 2 See this court's orders entered this date in Robinson v. Nagel, 3:13-cv-00422-MMD-WGC. (Doc. ## 19. 20) 1 2 3 Corizon Health. (3:13-cv-00422-MMD-WGC; Doc. # 18 at 1; see Doc. # 17 at 3, 4.) It is Plaintiff's obligation to effect service on defendant Howell. As Plaintiff was previously advised, 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, in part, as follows: 5 [I]f a defendant is not served within 120 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 the defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period... 6 7 8 Doc. # 7. 9 The 120 day time period referred to in Doc.# 7 has already expired. It does not appear from the 10 record Plaintiff has completed service on Ms. Howell after being advised she no longer works out of the 11 Washoe County Detention facility. Although Plaintiff's action is subject to a dismissal at this time, 12 notice is given to Plaintiff that this action shall be dismissed without prejudice as to Ms. Howell unless 13 on or before February 14, 2015, proof of service of Plaintiff's complaint upon defendant Howell has 14 been filed with the court, or good cause is shown why such service was not made prior to the deadline. 15 Failure to comply with this Notice and Order shall result in the automatic dismissal of this action 16 without prejudice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: December 17, 2014. 19 _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?