Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01969-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY MICHAEL TORRES, SR.,

et al.,

No. CIV S-07-1969 LEW DAD PS

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

This case was filed on September 20, 2007. More than 220 days have passed, and

plaintiffs have failed to file evidence that a summons and complaint have been properly served

on any defendant.

By order filed September 24, 2007, the pro se plaintiffs were advised that Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) sets a 120-day deadline for effecting service of a summons and

complaint on each defendant. When the case came before the court for a status (pretrial

scheduling) conference on January 18, 2008, plaintiffs had not effected service of process on any

defendant. The undersigned found good cause to grant an extension of time for this purpose. 

The deadline for service was extended to March 18, 2008, and the status conference was

continued to April 18, 2008. Plaintiffs were cautioned that the court may be required to dismiss

defendants who were not served with process by March 18, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01969-JAM-DAD Document 17 Filed 04/30/08 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

2

On March 19, 2008, plaintiffs requested a six-month extension of time to obtain

an attorney. The request was silent with regard to service of process. In the interests of justice,

the undersigned construed the filing as a request for a second extension of time to effect service

of process on defendants. The status conference set for April 18, 2008, was vacated, and

plaintiffs were granted a final extension of time to April 17, 2008, to serve process on

defendants. Plaintiffs were advised that if they did not file evidence of service of process on or

before April 17, 2008, the undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). It is now April 28, 2008, and

plaintiffs have not filed evidence of service of process upon any defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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)(1). Any

objections to these findings and recommendations must be in submitted in writing and must be

filed within twenty (20) days after these findings and recommendations are served. A document

containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 29, 2008.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.prose\torres1969.r4m.f&r

Case 2:07-cv-01969-JAM-DAD Document 17 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 2