Valdez v. Leeds, 1:17-cv-00430-LJO-SAB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190923629
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING JAMES SIZEMORE AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4(m) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Michael Valdez ("Plaintiff") filed this action on March 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On October 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint naming James Sizemore as defendant in the action. (ECF No. 77.) The parties filed motions for summary judgment on June 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 107-110.) In the August 30, 2019 memorandum
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING JAMES SIZEMORE AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4(m) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Michael Valdez ("Plaintiff") filed this action on March 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On October 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint naming James Sizemore as defendant in the action. (ECF No. 77.) The parties filed motions for summary judgment on June 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 107-110.) In the August 30, 2019 memorandum d..
More
ORDER DISMISSING JAMES SIZEMORE AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SERVE IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4(m)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Michael Valdez ("Plaintiff") filed this action on March 23, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On October 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint naming James Sizemore as defendant in the action. (ECF No. 77.) The parties filed motions for summary judgment on June 19, 2019. (ECF Nos. 107-110.) In the August 30, 2019 memorandum decision and order on the motions for summary judgment, the Court noted that Plaintiff had never summoned James Sizemore and Plaintiff was ordered to show cause within ten days why he should not be terminated as a defendant in this action. (ECF No. 120 at 14, 28.) More than ten days have passed and Plaintiff has not shown cause for the failure to serve James Sizemore nor otherwise responded to the order.
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.
Accordingly, James Sizemore is HEREBY DISMISSED as a defendant in this action for Plaintiff's failure to serve the complaint in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
