Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00212/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00212-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

JOHN McFARLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. ELLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00212-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT

SERVICE WITHIN ONE-HUNDRED

TWENTY DAYS

(Doc. 18)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff John McFarland (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). Plaintiff filed this action on February 24, 2006. On July 9, 2007, the Court

issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect service of summonses and the amended complaint on

Defendants Ellis, Wrigley, Cornell, Uzzle, and Nelson within one-hundred twenty days. More than

one-hundred twenty days have passed. There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that

Plaintiff effected service on Defendants.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00212-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 02/13/08 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

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to effect service within a specified time.

There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff has done so. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(m),

Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of

process on Defendants Ellis, Wrigley, Cornell, Uzzle, and Nelson. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

effect service of process on Defendants; and

2. The failure to respond to this order, or the failure to show good cause, will result in

the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to effect service on

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00212-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2