Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02864/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02864-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY E. W. McEVERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2864 FCD JFM PS

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendant Angela Eisentrout's motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing

January 11, 2008. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Jonathan B. Paul made a special

appearance on behalf of defendant Eisentrout. There was no appearance for defendants County

of Sacramento, Lou Blanas and Mark Iwasa. Upon review of the motion and the documents in

support, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and plaintiff and good cause appearing therefor,

THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendant Eisentrout’s motion to dismiss, filed October 29, 2007, was initially

noticed for hearing on December 6, 2007. Plaintiff Harry McEvers, proceeding pro se, failed to

timely file an opposition. Hearing on the pending motion was continued to January 11, 2008. 

Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to December 27, 2007 to file opposition. Plaintiff was

cautioned that failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing would be deemed as a statement

of non-opposition to the granting of the motion. Local Rules 78-230(c); 78-230(j) and 11-110. 

Plaintiff filed no opposition.

Case 2:06-cv-02864-FCD-JFM Document 30 Filed 01/14/08 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

2

Plaintiff stated he has now located defendant Eisentrout’s home address and can

accomplish service of process within the next two weeks. Counsel advised the court that

defendant Eisentrout has not granted his law firm authority to accept service of process on her

behalf. Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be granted a second extension of time in which to

serve defendant Eisentrout. (See August 23, 2007 Order at 2-3.) Plaintiff shall serve defendant

Eisentrout no later than February 1, 2008. 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process will be

partially granted. The October 9, 2007 service of process on defendant Eisentrout was

ineffective based in part on plaintiff’s failure to serve summons with the complaint. Plaintiff is

reminded of his obligation to serve the summons with the complaint. “A summons shall be

served together with a copy of the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Plaintiff is cautioned that

failure to properly serve defendant Eisentrout no later than February 1, 2008 will likely result in a

recommendation that defendant Eisentrout be dismissed from this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Eisentrout’s October 29, 2007 motion to dismiss is partially

granted; the October 9, 2007 service of process on defendant Eisentrout was ineffective based in

part on plaintiff’s failure to include summons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).

2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time in which to accomplish service of

process on defendant Eisentrout. No later than February 1, 2008, plaintiff shall accomplish

service on defendant Eisentrout. No further extensions of time will be granted. 

DATED: January 11, 2008.

/001; mcevers.eot

Case 2:06-cv-02864-FCD-JFM Document 30 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2