Harrison v. Pick-N-Pull Auto Dismantlers ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANTHONY M. HARRISON, No. 2:19-cv-01775 TLN AC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 PICK-N-PULL AUTO DISMANTLERS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, filed a complaint September 9, 2019, and paid the filing fee. 18 ECF No. 1. On that same day, new civil case documents were issued instructing plaintiff 19 complete service of process on defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint. ECF No. 3 at 1, 20 citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to accomplish service within the 21 timeline may result in dismissal of the action. Id. There are three defendants in this action: Pick- 22 N-Pull Auto Dismantlers, Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., and Frank Wilkerson. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. 23 Plaintiff filed a “summons returned executed” on September 16, 2019. ECF No. 5. The 24 document contains two purported “return of service” forms indicating that Maria Lara was the 25 “server” and that she served unnamed recipients by certified mail. Id. at 1-2. There is no 26 indication as to who was served, what was served, or where anything was sent. Id. at 1-3. 27 Further, “certified mail is not sufficient service under either prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1), 28 which governs service of corporations, partnerships, or associations within the United States. 1 | Rule 4(h)(1) does not provide for service by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A), (B); see also 2 | Yates v. Baldwin, 633 F.3d 669, 672 (8th Cir.2011) (noting that certified mail does not constitute 3 || “delivering” under Rule 4).” Schauf v. Am. Airlines, No. 1:15-cv-01172-SKO, 2015 WL 4 | 5647343, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2015). Thus, it appears plaintiff has failed to timely 5 || effectuate service in this case. 6 Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with court orders or the Local Rules “may 7 || be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 8 || inherent power of the Court.” 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause, in writing no later than January 22, 2020, why this 11 action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; 12 2. Plaintiff’s filing of a proof of service compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13 upon each defendant will be deemed good cause shown; and 14 3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the case will be dismissed. 15 || DATED: January 7, 2020 ~ 16 AMhun—Clorne ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28