Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680-22/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATHAN HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-CV-01680 DJC AC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By order filed May 1, 2024, this court ordered plaintiff to show cause why he has not 

provided additional identifying information for defendants Medina and Gomez in order to effect 

service of process on these defendants. ECF No. 115 at 2. This order warned plaintiff that absent 

good cause for failing to complete service, the court would recommend dismissal without 

prejudice of defendants Medina and Gomez. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order to 

show cause and the time period to do so has passed. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that a defendant be served within 90 days 

after the complaint is filed. This period may only be extended by the court if plaintiff shows good 

cause for the failure to timely serve the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent good cause, the 

court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant. Id. 

In this case, plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order and has not provided any reason 

why the time period for affecting service of process on defendants Medina and Gomez should be 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 120 Filed 08/13/24 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 

extended. See Habib v. GMC, 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994) (emphasizing that plaintiff has the 

burden of demonstrating good cause for the failure to properly effect service within the time 

provided by Rule 4(m)). In light of this record, the undersigned recommends dismissing 

defendants Medina and Gomez from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Medina and Gomez be dismissed 

without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to effect timely service of process. 

 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 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). 

DATED: August 12, 2024 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 120 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 2