Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01268/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01268-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

ROBERTA GARCIA-GOOCH, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01268-EPG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF 

PROCESS

45-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Roberta Garcia-Gooch, is proceeding pro se in this action for judicial review 

of an unfavorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 

regarding her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. 

Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

If a defendant is not served within 90 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action on September 11, 2019. Summons was 

issued on October 23, 2019.1 On February 20, 2020, after significantly more than 90 days had

 

1 The delay between the filing of the complaint and the issuance of the summons is due to Plaintiff’s 

initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), which the Court denied because it was incomplete (ECF 

Case 1:19-cv-01268-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 3
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

passed since Plaintiff filed her complaint and since the Court issued the summons, the Court 

issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) requiring Plaintiff to show cause why her case should 

not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service in accordance with the 90-day time limit in 

Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 8.) 

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed her response to the OSC, explaining that she had been 

very ill and unable to complete service during the allotted time. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff also 

explained that she was searching for counsel to represent her and requested that she be granted 

a three- to four-week extension of time to effectuate service of process. (Id.) The Court 

discharged the order to show cause, granted Plaintiff’s requested extension of time, and 

reminded Plaintiff that she could request the assistance of the Court in effectuating service at 

no cost to herself. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was directed to file a return of service by no later 

than April 10, 2020, demonstrating that Defendant had been served. (Id.)

The April 10, 2020, deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a return of service, 

requested additional time to effectuate service, or requested the assistance of the Court in 

effectuating service. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff IS ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to effectuate service in accordance with the 90-day time limit in Rule 

4(m), as previously extended by the Court to April 10, 2020. Plaintiff shall file a written show 

cause response within forty-five (45) days of this Order. She may file her response by mailing 

it via U.S. mail to the following address: Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of California, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

 

No. 3). Plaintiff filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis on October 21, 2019 (ECF No. 4), which 

the Court granted on October 23, 2019 (ECF No. 5). The Court also issued the summons on October 23, 2019 

(ECF No. 6).

Case 1:19-cv-01268-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

If Plaintiff needs the assistance of the Court in effectuating service, Plaintiff should 

request such assistance in her show cause response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01268-DAD-EPG Document 11 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 3