Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2013
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED THIRTY DAY DEADLINE DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff originally filed his action in the Kings County Superior Court on June 26, 2012. Defendants paid the filing fee and removed the action on August 16, 2012. 1 On April 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis, to serve Defendants Martine
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED THIRTY DAY DEADLINE DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff originally filed his action in the Kings County Superior Court on June 26, 2012. Defendants paid the filing fee and removed the action on August 16, 2012. 1 On April 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis, to serve Defendants Martines..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
DENNIS L. BECK, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff originally filed his action in the Kings County Superior Court on June 26, 2012. Defendants paid the filing fee and removed the action on August 16, 2012.1 On April 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis, to serve Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Plaintiff was ordered to complete service with one-hundred twenty (120) days from the date of service of this order.
Over one-hundred and twenty days have passed and there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff effected service on these Defendants.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part: If 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 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.
Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to effect service within a specified time. There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has done so. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff must show cause why Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson should not be dismissed from this action for failure to effect service of process.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order why Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson should not be dismissed from this action for failure to effect service of process; and
2. The failure to respond to this order, or the failure to show good cause, will result in the dismissal of Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson, without prejudice, for failure to effect service.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
