Filed: Oct. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SERVE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON ALL UNSERVED DEFENDANTS JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr. initiated this action on June 23, 2014 by filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) In that Complaint, Plaintiff named 12 defendants: Sleely, A. Canlas, Martinez, Velardi, R. Clarke, Newton, A. Denbela (incorrectly named as A. Dembela), Jodie Rivera, M. Glynn, R. Cobb, R. Olson, and J. Ramirez. ( Id. ) On February 17, 2015, the Court granted Plainti
Summary: ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SERVE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON ALL UNSERVED DEFENDANTS JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr. initiated this action on June 23, 2014 by filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) In that Complaint, Plaintiff named 12 defendants: Sleely, A. Canlas, Martinez, Velardi, R. Clarke, Newton, A. Denbela (incorrectly named as A. Dembela), Jodie Rivera, M. Glynn, R. Cobb, R. Olson, and J. Ramirez. ( Id. ) On February 17, 2015, the Court granted Plaintif..
More
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SERVE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON ALL UNSERVED DEFENDANTS
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr. initiated this action on June 23, 2014 by filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) In that Complaint, Plaintiff named 12 defendants: Sleely, A. Canlas, Martinez, Velardi, R. Clarke, Newton, A. Denbela (incorrectly named as A. Dembela), Jodie Rivera, M. Glynn, R. Cobb, R. Olson, and J. Ramirez. (Id.) On February 17, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and summons were issued allowing Plaintiff to serve all the named defendants. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)
Defendants Sleely, Canlas, Newton, Denbela, Rivera, Glynn, Cobb, Olson, and Ramirez were served. Defendants Martinez, Velardi, and Clarke were not served. (ECF Nos. 10-22, 25.)
On February 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, but did so without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), after an extension of time, on May 12, 2016. (ECF No. 43.) In his FAC, Plaintiff named the above defendants1 but also added defendants E. Worman, R. Scharffenberg, I. Sedighi, L. Meritt, and L. Sheppard. (Id.) A summons was issued on May 16, 2016. (ECF No. 44.)2 There is no indication the FAC was served on the newly-added defendants.3
"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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The previously unserved and newly named defendants should have been served 90 days from the filing of the FAC on May 12, 2016. To date, none of the previously unserved defendants nor the newly-added defendants have been served. These defendants are: Walker, Velardi, Martinez, Worman, Scharffenberg, Sedighi, Meritt, and Sheppard.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to arrange for service by the United States Marshal's Office on the unserved Defendants.4 If these defendants are not served within 30 days of the date on which this Order is electronically docketed, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
