Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01120-41/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA FRAHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SURYADEVARA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-01120 AWI GSA 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SUMMONS AND THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT HAVE NOT BEEN

SERVED IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE

4 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s original pro se complaint was filed on August 21, 2006. (Doc. 1.) On

September 25, 2006, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. 8.) On October

23, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed. (Doc. 11.) On October 25, 2006, findings and

recommendations were made to the district court judge, recommending Plaintiff’s action proceed

against Defendant Suryadevara on the Eighth Amendment medical care claim, but that the claims

as against other defendants be dismissed. (Doc. 12 at 4-6.) On March 13, 2007, United States

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii adopting the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 16.) On

May 29, 2007, Defendant Suryadevara filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 25.) 

1

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 136 Filed 07/28/10 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

On February 14, 2008, Plaintiff was given leave to file a second amended complaint. 

(Doc. 37.) On March 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 6, 2008,

findings and recommendations were made to the district court judge, recommending that

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Ashraf, Spaeder, and Iyer be stricken

from the second amended complaint. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff filed objections on May 27, 2008. 

(Doc. 49.) On July 14, 2008, Judge Ishii issued an order adopting the findings and

recommendations. (Doc. 55.) On October 20, 2008, Defendant Spaeder filed an answer to the

complaint. (Doc. 63.) On January 8, 2009, Defendant Ashraf filed an answer to the complaint. 

(Doc. 67.) 

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute Mary Lee Gill, as successor in

interest to Defendant Spaeder, as Ms. Spaeder passed away on November 28, 2008. (Doc. 107.)1

On October 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The complaint names

Sampath Suryadevara, M.D., Mohammad Ashraf, M.D., and the Estate of Nancy Spaeder, R.N. 

(Doc. 121.)

On October 26, 2009, Defendants Suryadevara and Ashraf filed answers to the third

amended complaint. (Docs. 124 & 125.) 

On October 30, 2009, this Court issued a summons to the Estate of Nancy Spaeder, R.N.,

Deceased. (Doc. 126.)

On January 11, 2010, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations pertaining to the

issue of Ms. Spaeder’s estate and Plaintiff’s then pending motion. (Doc. 128.) The findings

provided, in pertinent part:

The second amended complaint has been superceded by the filing of the

third amended complaint, in which the Estate of Nancy Spaeder, R.N. is named as

a defendant. No evidence in the record to the contrary and with time left for

service to be effected, the Court presumes service on the party found to be proper

by Plaintiff’s counsel is pending. Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Mary Lee Gill

In May 2009, the Court determined the appointment of counsel for Plaintiff was

1

warranted. (Docs. 86 & 88.) On June 1, 2009, attorney John F. Garland filed a Designation of

Counsel. (Doc. 93.) 

2

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 136 Filed 07/28/10 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

for Nancy Spaeder, named in the second amended complaint, has been rendered

moot, and the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS denial of the motion, without

prejudice on that ground.

(Doc. 128 at 2.) No party filed objections. On February 4, 2010, Judge Ishii issued an Order

adopting the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 129.) 

To date, no appearance has been made on behalf of the Estate of Nancy Spaeder, R.N. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant

within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its

own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without

prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 

More than 120 days have elapsed since Plaintiff filed the third amended complaint in this

action. That complaint was filed October 16, 2009; thus, 120 days elapsed as of February 13,

2010. Moreover, more than 120 days have elapsed since this Court issued the summons to the

Estate of Nancy Spaeder, R.N., Deceased. The summons issued October 30, 2009; thus, 120

days elapsed as of February 27, 2010. 

In light of the foregoing, this Court ORDERS Plaintiff, no later than August 11, 2010,

to show cause in writing why Plaintiff has failed to: (1) file documents to show proof of service

of the summons and third amended complaint on the aforementioned defendant to comply with

Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) accomplish service of the summons

and third amended complaint on the aforementioned defendant within 120 days of filing the

complaint to comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

//

//

//

//

3

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 136 Filed 07/28/10 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

Plaintiff is admonished that this Court will recommend dismissal of this action if

Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order and to show good cause for failure to accomplish

service of the summons and third amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 28, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:06-cv-01120-AWI -MJS Document 136 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 4