Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01600/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01600-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

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

When Plaintiff failed to file proofs of service and no defendant appeared in this action, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to follow the 

Court’s orders.1 (Doc. 12) Plaintiff has responded to the Court’s order by explaining that he did not 

understand the express terms of the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference that he was

obligated to diligently attempt service of the summons and relied only upon the 120 days allowed for 

service under Rule 4. (Doc. 20 at 6) The Court appreciates the difficulty of litigation by one 

 

1

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) was amended in December 2015 to reduce 

the amount of time to serve a summons and complaint to 90 days. He reports that he was unaware of this change in the law 

but fully intended to serve process within 120 days. Notably, the order to show cause was not grounded on Rule 4. (Doc. 

12 at 2) Rather it took exception to Plaintiff’s failure to diligently serve the summons and complaint such to allow the 

mandatory scheduling conference to proceed as ordered at the initiation of this case. Id. The Court made no comment at 

the time it issued the order to show cause—nor does it at this time—as to the retroactivity of the amendment to Rule 4(m). 

Thus, the Court does not address counsel’s arguments related to Rule 4. However, Plaintiff is reminded that regardless of a 

rule of procedure, he SHALL comply with all orders of this Court or risk sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

JEROME J. MACK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01600 --- JLT 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(Doc.12)

ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Case 1:15-cv-01600-JLT Document 24 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

unschooled on the law and procedure. Now that he has counsel, he will be able to pose questions to 

his attorney. However, he is reminded that he is still obligated to comply with all orders of the Court;

having an attorney does not relieve him of that obligation. Thus, the Court will discharge the order to 

show cause without imposing any sanction.

In addition, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to February 26, 2016 to effect service. (Doc. 

20) However, in light of the need for the Clerk of the Court to issue amended summonses, the Court 

does not believe this amount of time is realistic. Therefore the Court ORDERS:

1. The order to show cause is DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff SHALL serve the summonses and first amended complaint and file proof of 

service no later than March 11, 2016;

3. The mandatory scheduling conference is continued to April 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01600-JLT Document 24 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2