Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01711/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01711-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JESSE GILLIAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARBARA HOPE O’NEILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01711-DAD-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

PROOF OF SERVICE OR NOTICE OF 

STATUS OF SERVICE OF PROCESS ON 

DEFENDANTS

William Jesse Gilliam (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Barbara Hope O’Neill, the County of Fresno, Phil Larson, 

Susan B. Anderson, Henry R. Perea, Judy Case McNairy, Deporah Poochigian, Andreas 

Boregas, Buddy Mendez, Brian Pacheco, Ken Taniguchi, and Elizabeth Diaz (“Defendants”) 

based on delays in bringing him to trial on allegations that he was a sexually violent predator. 

On December 11, 2019, the summonses issued in this action along with the order setting the 

mandatory scheduling conference for March 3, 2020. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4.) 

The order setting the mandatory scheduling conference informed Plaintiff that they were 

to “diligently pursue service of the summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of the 

service.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff was referred to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. (Id. at 1-2.) Further, 

Plaintiff was advised that “[f]ailure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, 

Case 1:19-cv-01711-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 02/11/20 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

including dismissal of unserved Defendants.” (Id. at 2.) 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the time requirements for 

service of the complaint in civil cases. Rule 4(m) provides:

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.

Here, the mandatory scheduling conference is fast approaching and Plaintiff has not filed 

proof that the complaint and summons have been served on Defendants. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall either 

a) file proof of service on the defendants in this action; or b) a notice informing 

the Court of the status of service on Defendants; and

2. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order may result in the 

issuance of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01711-DAD-SAB Document 6 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2