Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01167/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

10cv1167

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM TAYLOR SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration,

Defendant.

10cv1167 BEN (PCL)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO SERVE PROCESS

OUTSIDE OF THE 120 DAY

PERIOD

(Doc. No. 09)

On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma

pauperis. On June 3, 2010 the Court granted leave the motion, and on June 28, 2010, a Summons

was issued as to Michael J. Astrue. On December 14, 2010, the Court issued an Order directing the

United States Marshal to serve the Summons and Complaint. By February 17, 2011, service had

not been effected and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause constituting notice to Plaintiff that

the Court would dismiss the case without prejudice unless, on or before March 17, 2011, Plaintiff

filed either (1) proof that the summons and complaint were timely served, or (2) a declaration under

penalty of perjury showing good cause for failure to timely serve the Defendant with the summons

and complaint accompanied by a motion for leave to serve process outside of the 120 day period.

On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Serve Process Outside the

Case 3:10-cv-01167-BEN-PCL Document 10 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 3
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

10cv1167

2

120 Day Period. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration stating, in her

prior experience, once a court had granted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis the court would

also issue an order directing the clerk of the court to issue a summons on the matter and direct the

United States Marshal to effect service of process. Because Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma

pauperis had been granted in this case, counsel declares that she anticipated the District Court Clerk

would issue a summons to her office. She also declares that, in her previous experience, District

Court judges who have issued orders granting motions to proceed in forma pauperis have also issued

orders directing the United States Marshall to serve a copy of the summons and complaint on

defendants.

Counsel states that she waited for the issuance of summons for one month before creating a

Summons and submitting it to the Clerk of the Court on June 28, 2010. She states that the Clerk

informed her that the proper procedure would be for the Court to direct the Clerk of the Court to

issue the Summons and dictate the preferred steps for service to be performed.

Counsel declares that her father became ill during April of 2010 and passed away on September

3, 2010 and, because of these events, she was unable to take more assertive steps to assure service

of process prior to the end of the 120 day period on September 25, 2010. Finally, counsel states that

she was unsure how to proceed when, on December 14, 2010, the court issued an Order directing

the United States Marshal to effect service. Finally, counsel declares she is cognizant of the

pressures upon the court and the need for cases to proceed at an acceptable pace.

However, it is not clear to the Court why court why counsel waited an additional 101 days

before responding to the Court’s Order issued on February 17, 2011, nor is it clear why counsel

allowed an additional eight months after expiration of the 120 day period had passed without

seeking clarification on how to proceed. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the 120 day

period had already expired when the Court issued instructions for the Marshal to effect process. In

addition, it is not clear to the Court why counsel did not seek to seek waiver of process by mailing

the summons and complaint to the Defendant prior to the expiration of the 120 day period. See

F.R.C.P. 4(d)(1).

Courts must balance the need to encourage diligent prosecution of lawsuits against the possible

Case 3:10-cv-01167-BEN-PCL Document 10 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 3
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

10cv1167

3

loss of a litigant’s federal case. Townsel v. Contra Costa County, Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 320-21 (9th

Cir. 1987) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the plaintiff’s

case even though the statute of limitations had run, making the dismissal effectively a dismissal with

prejudice). In light of the fact that Plaintiff filed his complaint more than one year ago, but has

failed to serve Defendants with the Summons and Complaint, the Court would be within its

discretion to dismiss the action. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451-52 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal is

warranted where there is unreasonable delay in prosecuting the case). 

However, given the fact that Counsel declares, under penalty of perjury, that her father suffered

illness and ultimately passed away during the time for service of process, the Court finds good cause

to grant leave to serve process outside the 120 day period. Plaintiff shall have until July 15, 2011

to serve Defendant. This order constitutes notice to Plaintiff that his case will be dismissed for

failure to prosecute unless, on or before July 15, 2011, Plaintiff submits proof that the

Summons and Complaint were served prior to that date.

Therefore, because Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested extension of time, the

Motion for Leave to Serve Process Outside the 120 Day Period is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2011

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: The Honorable Roger T. Benitez

All Parties and Counsel of Record

Case 3:10-cv-01167-BEN-PCL Document 10 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 3