Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03815/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03815-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL S. WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3815 PJH

v. ORDER 

CONRAD L. COX, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Michael S. White filed this action on July 25, 2007. He did not request that a

summons be issued by the clerk; did not arrange for service of the summons and complaint

as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c), (e), (m); and did not file a proof of

service as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l). 

The case was originally assigned to U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney. On

November 19, 2007, Judge Chesney sua sponte issued an order of referral, pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), requesting the undersigned judge to consider whether the case

was related to White v. Wharff, Case No. C-06-4137 PJH. Upon a determination that the

cases were related, the above-entitled action was reassigned to the undersigned.

On November 26, 2007, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing why the

present action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint

within the time set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. On December 5, 2007, plaintiff

filed a written response, stating that it was “never [his] intention” to violate the Federal

Rules, and that the failure to serve defendants in accordance with Rule 4 was an

“oversight.” 

Case 4:07-cv-03815-PJH Document 13 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

However, to date plaintiff has apparently made no effort to have a summons issued,

or to serve defendants in accordance with Rule 4. More than 145 days have elapsed since

the complaint was filed – or 25 days past the 120 days allowed for service under Rule 4(m). 

Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff an additional two weeks. If plaintiff fails to file a

proof of service of the summons and complaint by Wednesday, January 2, 2007, the action

will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03815-PJH Document 13 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2