ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS.

ECF Nos. 38, 39.

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff Aaron Raiser filed an ex parte request with the Court to extend the time to serve a summons on a Deputy Officer currently named as a Doe Defendant. ECF No. 38. On December 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended motion that was substantially the same. ECF No. 39.

"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. Pro. ("FRCP") 4(m). However, a Court must grant plaintiff an extension to serve the defendant upon a finding of "good cause." Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013).

Here, after Plaintiff's protest that the County had not identified the Doe Deputy, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Defendant County of San Diego "attempt to locate information responsive to" Plaintiff's request and provide that information, or a sworn declaration stating none was found, by November 22, 2019. ECF No. 3 at 2-3. Plaintiff now asserts that he has been unable to check his mail to receive Defendant County's response to the Magistrate's order since that date for a number of reasons, including Plaintiff's indigence, homelessness, loss of his laptop, and attendance at a two-week trial in Los Angeles. ECF No. ¶¶ 3-10. Plaintiff asks the Court for two more weeks to serve the Deputy so he may check his mail and comply with FRCP 4. ECF No. 39-1 at 1.

Based upon these facts, the Court finds good cause to permit Plaintiff additional time for service. Consequently, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff must serve the Defendant Deputy, if he or she can be identified, on or before January 1, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.