Lindsay Ross v. State of California et al
Filing
14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym:, Order to Show Cause Why Defendant State of California Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Effect Service. Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing by June 21, 2012 why defendant State of California should not be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiffs failure to serve defendant State of California within the time required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (kca)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 11-1252-DSF (SP)
Title
LINDSAY C. ROSS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
May 31, 2012
Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge
Kimberly I. Carter
Deputy Clerk
None
Court Reporter / Recorder
None
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present
None Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Defendant State of California
Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Effect Service
In its initial, August 9, 2011 order in this case, the court advised plaintiff that,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of the summons and complaint must
be accomplished on each named defendant within 120 days after the filing of the
complaint. The court told plaintiff that the 120-day period would expire on December 3,
2011. The court further warned plaintiff that his failure to effectuate service by that date
may result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice as to any unserved defendants
by reason of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, unless plaintiff can show good cause for
extending the time for service.
Although plaintiff apparently has served all of the individual defendants named in
the complaint, there is no indication that he has served defendant State of California.
Plaintiff has not filed proof of such service. And in his status report filed May 23, 2012,
plaintiff stated that the Department of Justice for California mailed back the documents
he sent to them, and that he “served those documents on Jack Powazek, an official of
UCLA.” The court is aware of no authority or agreement under which service on a
UCLA official would constitute service on the State of California. And by plaintiff’s
account, it appears that his earlier attempt to serve the State of California failed.
Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing by June 21, 2012
why defendant State of California should not be dismissed without prejudice for
plaintiff’s failure to serve defendant State of California within the time required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
]]>
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?
