Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01624/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01624-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

GREGORIO FUNTANILLA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMAN W. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

ECF No. 42

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 

DAYS

Plaintiff Gregorio Funtanilla, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint against Defendants Roman W. Williams, Jesuit S. Manson, K. Turner, D. Ibarra, O. A. 

Ybarra, M.A. Baires, J. Lias, R. Gomez, Nola Grannis, Angela Romanello, Kelly Santoro, Derral G. 

Adams, and Ken Clark for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. On March 22, 2012, Plaintiff was 

instructed with service of process and directed to effect service on these thirteen Defendants within 

120 days. ECF No. 24.

On April 26, 2012, a summons was returned executed on Defendant Roman Williams. ECF 

No. 39. As of the date of this order, no indication of service has been submitted as to the other 

twelve Defendants. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants must 

be served within 120 days. On September 14, 2012, the Court issued an order to show cause why 

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 44 Filed 02/12/13 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

this action should not be dismissed against the twelve unserved Defendants for failure to effect 

service of process. On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed his response. On November 13, 2012, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to re-attempt service of process. Plaintiff was granted an additional sixty 

(60) days. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not submitted any documents demonstrating that 

he has served process.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to show cause within twenty-one 

(21) days why this action should not be dismissed against the twelve unserved Defendants for failure 

to effect service of process. Failure to timely respond or otherwise show cause will result in 

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:10-cv-01624-LJO-DLB Document 44 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 2