Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ALL UNSERVED DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ALL UNSERVED DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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 i..
More
ORDER DISMISSING ALL UNSERVED DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
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 defendants 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.)1 There is no indication the FAC was served on the newly-added defendants.2 "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 Court ordered Plaintiff to serve all unserved defendants by November 27, 2017. (See ECF No. 68.) Plaintiff then requested an extension of time to serve, which the Court granted. (See ECF Nos. 71, 74.) Thus, Plaintiff was required to serve the unserved Defendants by January 15, 2018. (See ECF No. 74, at 2.) The Court warned Plaintiff it would dismiss the unserved Defendants without prejudice in accordance with Rule 4(m) if they were not served by this date. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed an executed summons for the unserved Defendants. The following Defendants remain unserved: Walker, Velardi, Martinez, Worman, Scharffenberg, Sedighi, Meritt, and Sheppard. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court DISMISSES these unserved Defendants WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
