Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00814/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00814-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

FRANCIS HORN, an individual, No. 2:05-cv-00814-MCE-KJM P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA;

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; ASSOC. WARDEN

K.M. CHASTAIN, individually;

CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN STILES,

individually; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICE J. GRADY, individually;

MTA W. VAN SANDT,

individually; RN T. MEEKS,

individually; RN G. LAUCIRICA,

individually; RN J. MARSTON,

individually; FRANK CHRISTIAN,

individually.

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is Defendant Lauciraca’s Motion

to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Rule 4(m) provides that unless service is effectuated on a

defendant within 120 days after filing of the complaint, the

Court shall dismiss the action as to that defendant or direct

that service be effected within a specified time. 

Case 2:05-cv-00814-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

An exception to mandatory dismissal is recognized, however, if

the plaintiff shows good cause for failure to comply with

Rule 4(m). In that instance, an extension for service of process

is authorized.

The instant action was initiated in Sacramento County

Superior Court on April 6, 2005. The State of California timely

removed the case to this Court on April 22, 2005. In a removed

case, the 120-day period prescribed by Rule 4(m) commences on the

date of removal (see Vasquez v. N. County Transit Dist., 292 F.3d

1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 1987)), thereby necessitating service on all

defendants not later than August 21, 2005. Defendant Lauciraca,

however, was not served until almost a year later, on August 16,

2006. The instant motion was consequently filed on September 12,

2006. Because of Lauciraca’s failure to request a hearing date,

however, the matter was not regularly noticed for hearing until

December 7, 2007.

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendant Lauciraca’s Motion. 

Given that non-opposition, and Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate

any good cause for waiting nearly a year to serve Defendant

Lauciraca, the present Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

1

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00814-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendant Lauciraca is dismissed as a party to the present

lawsuit, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00814-MCE -KJM Document 51 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3