Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00858/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00858-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00858 LJO DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS 

HUBBARD, CATE, HARRINGTON, SOTO, 

GRISSOM, DAVIS, FOSTER AND FREIR

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT 

TO RULE 4(M)

(Doc. 28)

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 5, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, 

Biter, Soto, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, Garza, Wegman, Alic, Grissom, 

Speidell, Davis, Foster, Freir, and Rankin (“Defendants”) on claims of violation of the Free 

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On October 1, 2012, the 

Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect service of summonses and the amended 

complaint on Defendants within one-hundred twenty days. More than one-hundred twenty days 

have passed. Defendants Biter, Phillips, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, Betzinger, Gregory, Garza, Wegman, 

Case 1:10-cv-00858-DAD-SAB Document 100 Filed 09/25/14 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

Alic, Speidell, and Rankin were served and made appearances in the action. Although it appears 

that Plaintiff has attempted to serve Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, 

Foster, and Freir, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff effected service on 

those defendants.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court -

on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must 

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), 

Plaintiff must show cause why Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, 

Foster, and Freir should not be dismissed from the action for failure to effect service of process.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within twenty (20) days from the 

date of service of this order why Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, 

Foster, and Freir should not be dismissed from the action for failure to effect service of process; 

and

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

the dismissal of Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Harrington, Soto, Grissom, Davis, Foster, and Freir

for failure to effect service on Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00858-DAD-SAB Document 100 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 2