Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01735/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01735-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE LARAY CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01735-SAB

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

MICHAEL DOZER PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

4(m)

(ECF No. 27)

On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding Michael Dozer as a 

defendant in this action. (ECF No. 24.) On June 18, 2015, a summons issued for Michael 

Dozer. (ECF No. 24.) On February 1, 2016 an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause 

within ten days why Michael Dozer should not be dismissed from this action for failure to 

comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. More than ten days have passed 

and Plaintiff has failed to show cause or otherwise respond to the February 1, 2016 order.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure addresses the time requirements for 

service of the complaint in civil cases. At the time the summons in this action was issued Rule 

4(m) provided:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court -

- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court 

must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Case 1:14-cv-01735-SAB Document 28 Filed 02/18/16 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

There are two avenues for relief under Rule 4(m). Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 

1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). First the court must extend time for service upon a showing of good 

cause. Id. Second, if good cause is not established, the district court has the discretion to extend 

time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect. Id. 

In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show cause, and therefore, 

has not established good cause or excusable neglect. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Michael Dozer is dismissed from this 

action, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01735-SAB Document 28 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2