Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00244-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE L. JOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00244-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT

SERVICE WITHIN ONE-HUNDRED

TWENTY DAYS

(Doc. 7)

Plaintiff Michelle L. Joe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 22, 2005. On August

22, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect service of summonses and the

complaint on Defendants Mekkam, Suryadevara, Goodwin, and Kruse within one-hundred twenty

days. More than one-hundred twenty days have passed. There is no evidence in the record

demonstrating that Plaintiff effected service on Defendants.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to effect service within a specified time.

There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has done so. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(m), 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00244-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff shall be ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect

service of process on Defendants Mekkam, Suryadevara, Goodwin, and Kruse. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

effect service of process on Defendants; and

2. The failure to respond to this order, or the failure to show good cause, will result in

the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to effect service on

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00244-OWW -LJO Document 13 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2