Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04551/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04551-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Case No. 15-cv-04551 NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELISA TURESIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SUNNYVALE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04551 NC 

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

SERVE

Re: Dkt. No. 15

In this unlawful arrest and excessive force case, plaintiff Turesin has not served the 

defendants with a copy of her complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), 

“[i]f 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.” 

Turesin filed her complaint on October 2, 2015. Dkt. No. 2. However, she has failed to 

serve the defendants to date.

The Court has already extended Turesin’s time for service of the defendants to 

February 19, 2016. See Dkt. No. 12. She has failed to meet the extended deadline.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) does provide that “if the plaintiff shows good 

cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” 

However, Turesin has not shown good cause for her continued failure to serve the 

defendants since filing her complaint. 

Case 5:15-cv-04551-NC Document 16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 15-cv-04551 NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In response to this Court’s order at docket 14 to show cause why the complaint 

should not be dismissed for failure to serve, Turesin argues that “[a]dditional investigation 

was conducted and needed, and continues.” Dkt. No. 15 at 1. Turesin states that “[t]his 

matter was filed to preserve the state claims statutes of limitations. We continue our 

investigation and inquiries.” 

However, Turesin does not show cause for why she failed to serve the defendants, 

and instead agrees that the best course of action would be “to serve the summons and 

complaint and then meet and confer with Defendants regarding additional information 

needed to amend pleadings so the proper issues may be framed and parties named.” Id. at 

2. By suggesting that she serve the defendants now without giving explanation for why 

she has not previously, Turesin concedes that she lacks good reason for the failure. 

Moreover, Turesin does not show what investigation excused her failure to serve the 

defendants.

Accordingly, Turesin’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is 

ordered to terminate case No. 15-cv-04551 NC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04551-NC Document 16 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2