(PS) Martinson v. City of Sacramento ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MARTINSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff commenced this action in November 2021. To date, none of the defendants have 18 appeared in this action, and plaintiff has not filed proofs of service demonstrating that defendants 19 were properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 21 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 22 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 23 specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 24 failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Although a pro 25 se litigants are generally afforded more latitude than one represented by counsel, a party’s pro se 26 status does not constitute “good cause” for failing to timely effect service. See King v. Atiyeh, 27 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 28 govern other litigants.”); Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987) 1 | (holding that ignorance of service requirements does not constitute “good cause” for failure to 2 | timely effect service); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (“Any individual representing himself or 3 | herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by 4 | these Local Rules.”). 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of this order why this 7 | action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed 8 | by Rule 4(m). 9 2. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation 10 | that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect services of process. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ December 2, 2022 Q_—_—. 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28