Mims v. Melton, 2:18cv645-MHT (WO). (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190211717
Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2019
Summary: SHOW-CAUSE ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 sets a time limit for service of a complaint. It provides: "If 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time fo
Summary: SHOW-CAUSE ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 sets a time limit for service of a complaint. It provides: "If 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for..
More
SHOW-CAUSE ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 sets a time limit for service of a complaint. It provides:
"If 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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on July 9, 2018 and filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2018. Plaintiff timely served one defendant with the complaint, but he apparently has not served the other three defendants. More than 90 days have passed since the filing of both the complaint and the amended complaint. Therefore, the court is considering dismissing plaintiff's claims against the three unserved defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m).
* * *
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff show cause, if any there be, in writing by February 22, 2019, as to why his claims against defendants Officer Cardaro Melton, Captain John Hutton, and Warden Leon Bolling and should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).
Source: Leagle
