Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-21157/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-21157-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEAZAR VILLEGAS, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

S. DUCK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-21157 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

Per order filed on July 2, 2007, the court revoked plaintiff's in forma

pauperis ("IFP") status and ordered him to pay the remaining $ 149.88 on the

applicable $ 150.00 filing fee in this matter, or file a court-approved nonprisoner IFP application showing that he is entitled to pauper status under 28

U.S.C. § 1915. The court also ordered plaintiff to show cause show cause as to

why defendants Duck, Higginbotham, Harris and Nappi should not be dismissed

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

On October 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a response to the court's order to show

cause stating that he had paid the remaining $ 149.88 on the applicable filing fee

and arguing that defendants Duck, Higginbotham, Harris and Nappi had not been

served by the United States Marshal through no fault of his own.

Case 3:99-cv-21157-CRB Document 57 Filed 10/30/07 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 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.99\Villegas1.or5.wpd 2

Plaintiff did not file any proof of payment of the remaining $ 149.88 on

the applicable filing fee and a review of court records did not reveal evidence of

any such payment. Within 30 days of this order, plaintiff shall submit proof of

payment or face dismissal of this suit.

Plaintiff has not submitted any proof of service of the summons and

complaint on defendants Duck, Higginbotham, Harris and Nappi either. Plaintiff

became solely responsible for service on these defendants when the court

revoked his IFP status on July 2, 2007. Rule 4(m) requires dismissal without

prejudice of these defendants unless they are served within 120 days after the

court revoked plaintiff's IFP status on July 2, 207. Within 30 days of this order,

plaint shall submit proof of service of the summons and complaint on defendants

Duck, Higginbotham, Harris and Nappi or face dismissal without prejudice of the

unserved defendants. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 30, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-21157-CRB Document 57 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2