Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01574-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP SANDERS, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

OFFICER C. ARANAS, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1574-AWI-SMS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS (DOC. 8)

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma paupaeris pro se with an

action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and

72-304.

On November 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming

Police Officer C. Aranas as a defendant. On January 4, 2007, the

Court directed the clerk to send to Plaintiff service documents

and instructed Plaintiff to complete them and to submit them to

the Court with a notice of submission of documents no later than

thirty days after service of the order. The docket reflects that

the clerk served the order and documents on Plaintiff on January

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/09/07 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

4, 2007. Plaintiff was also informed that a failure to comply

with the order would result in a recommendation to dismiss the

action as a failure to comply with an order of the Court within

the meaning of Local Rule 11-110.

More than thirty days have passed since the Court’s order

issued, and Plaintiff has failed to submit the service documents

or to seek an extension of time within which to do so.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of

the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501

U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this

order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s order of January 4,

2007, to submit service documents and thus to effectuate service

by the Marshal; Plaintiff shall show cause in writing because the

Court has determined that no hearing is necessary; and

2. The failure to respond to this order will result in

dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01574-AWI -SMS Document 9 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2