Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00244/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00244-5/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE

WITHIN ONE-HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS

(Docs. 7 and 13)

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, and on March 17, 2006, the Court

directed Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service

Case 1:05-cv-00244-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 03/27/06 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

of process on Defendants Mekkam, Suryadevara, Goodwin, and Kruse. Plaintiff did not file a

response to the order to show cause. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Rule 4(m), this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to effect timely service of process on Defendants.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00244-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2