Maldonado v. United Health Care Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, 1:19-cv-00551-LJO-SAB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190820b15
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FIVE DAY DEADLINE STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On April 26, 2019, Priscilla Maldonado ("Plaintiff") filed this action pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act against United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley. A first amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2019, adding Herman Leung as a defendant in this action
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FIVE DAY DEADLINE STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On April 26, 2019, Priscilla Maldonado ("Plaintiff") filed this action pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act against United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley. A first amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2019, adding Herman Leung as a defendant in this action...
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
FIVE DAY DEADLINE
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
On April 26, 2019, Priscilla Maldonado ("Plaintiff") filed this action pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act against United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley. A first amended complaint was filed on May 14, 2019, adding Herman Leung as a defendant in this action.
On April 30, 2019, an order setting the mandatory scheduling conference issued informing Plaintiff that she was to "diligently pursue service of the summons and complaint" and "promptly file proofs of the service." (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff was referred to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. (Id. at 1-2.) Further, Plaintiff was advised that "[f]ailure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of unserved defendants." (Id. at 2.)
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the time requirements for service of the complaint in civil cases. Rule 4(m) 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.
More than ninety days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service demonstrating that service has been effected in this matter nor has she sought an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days from the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the complaint in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
