Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00282/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00282-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JESSE GILLIAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARBARA HOPE O’NEILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01711-DAD-SAB

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS; DISCHARGING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING 

EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE 

COMPLAINT; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR 

ELECTRONIC CASE FILING; AND 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS MENDEZ 

AND PACHECO TO FILE A RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING

(ECF Nos. 8, 11, 15, 16)

William Jesse Gilliam (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Barbara Hope O’Neill, the County of Fresno, Phil Larson, 

Susan B. Anderson, Henry R. Perea, Judy Case McNairy, Deporah Poochigian, Andreas 

Boregas, Buddy Mendez, Brian Pacheco, Ken Taniguchi, and Elizabeth Diaz (“Defendants”) 

based on delays in bringing him to trial on allegations that he was a sexually violent predator. 

On February 11, 2020, due to the upcoming scheduling conference, an order issued requiring 

Plaintiff to either file proof of service of the summons and complaint on the defendants or a 

notice regarding the status of service on the defendants within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not 

comply or otherwise respond to the February 11, 2020 order. 

Case 1:18-cv-00282-BAM Document 52 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 4
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

On March 4, 2020, findings and recommendations were filed recommending that this 

action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the February 11, 2020 order and failure 

to prosecute. Plaintiff was to file objections within fourteen days. On March 10, 2020, proofs of 

service were returned showing that Brian Pacheco and Buddy Mendez were served on March 6, 

2020. Plaintiff did file objections to the March 4, 2020 findings and recommendations or 

otherwise respond. 

On March 25, 2020, an order was filed requiring Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen 

days why the unserved defendants should not be dismissed from this action for failure to serve. 

On March 26, 2020, Defendants Pacheco and Mendez’ application for an extension of time to 

respond to the complaint was granted. 

On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed an untimely ex parte application for an extension of 

time to serve the complaint and a motion for permission for electronic case filing. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated a complete disregard for the Federal Rules and orders of this 

Court. The February 11, 2020 order required Plaintiff to file proofs of service or a notice of the 

status of service within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not start service of the complaint until 

February 25, 2020, despite the fact that service was required to be effected within ninety days of 

December 9, 2019 pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, while

Plaintiff could not file proofs of service within fourteen days of the February 11, 2020 order

because he had not started process of service of the complaint, he did not file a notice of status of 

service as required by the February 11, 2020 order. 

Plaintiff was required to file objections to the March 4, 2020 findings and 

recommendations within fourteen days and did not file timely objections. Plaintiff was required 

to show cause why the unserved defendants should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within fourteen days of March 25, 2020 and 

he did not timely comply with the order. It was not until April 24, 2020 that Plaintiff filed a 

response seeking an extension of time to serve the complaint. 

It is clear from Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time that he has received the prior 

orders and findings and recommendations. Plaintiff states that he has been busy working. 

Case 1:18-cv-00282-BAM Document 52 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

However, Plaintiff chose to file this matter and his work schedule is not good cause for the 

multiple failures to comply that are documented here. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in 

this action he is required to familiarize himself with the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California and the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. Plaintiff is advised that the Fresno Division 

of the Eastern District of California now has one of the heaviest District Judge caseloads in the

entire nation. This Court does not have the resources to babysit Plaintiff to move this matter 

forward. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for his complete failure to comply with the 

orders of the court. 

Despite Plaintiff’s previous failures to comply, due to Plaintiff’s pro se status he will be 

provided with one final opportunity to serve the complaint. But Plaintiff is advised that further 

failure to comply with any order of this court may result in the immediate dismissal of this 

action. 

Plaintiff seeks permission to file using the electronic case filing system. Pursuant to the 

Local Rules , a pro se party shall file and serve paper documents as required by the Rule. Local 

Rule 133(a). A party appearing pro se may request an exception to the paper filing requirement 

from the court by filing a stipulation of the parties or by motion. Local Rule 133(b)(2), (3). 

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ request, the Court finds that this action does not warrant an exception 

to the Local Rule. Plaintiff’s request for permission to use the electronic case filing system is 

denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The March 4, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) is VACATED;

2. The March 25, 2020 order to show cause (ECF No. 11) is DISCHARGED;

3. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an extension of time to serve the complaint

(ECF No. 15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff shall serve the complaint within fortyfive (45) days of the date of service of this order;

4. Plaintiff SHALL FILE PROOFS OF SERVICE within three (3) days of the date 

a defendant is served; 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to use the electronic case filing system (ECF No. 

Case 1:18-cv-00282-BAM Document 52 Filed 04/27/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

16) is DENIED; 

6. Defendants Brian Pacheco and Buddy Mendez shall file a response to the 

complaint within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order; and

7. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance 

of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00282-BAM Document 52 Filed 04/27/20 Page 4 of 4