Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01810/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01810-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELTON DURRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01810-JD 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Mr. Thomas was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed against the 

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (“ACSO”) for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m), which requires that a defendant be served within 120 days after the complaint is 

filed. Dkt. No. 41. The complaint in this case was filed on April 18, 2014, and the ACSO had not 

been served almost one year later when the Court issued an order to show cause on March 30, 

2015. Id. 

Plaintiff appears to have effected service on April 3, 2015. Dkt. No. 42. But service was 

not made until after the Court issued the order to show cause and after plaintiff’s counsel

submitted a declaration that failed to show good cause for the prior failure to serve. Counsel 

initially claimed that she personally served the complaint and summons on the ACSO back in July 

15, 2014, but “inadvertently [] left out the name of the person [she] served.” Dkt. No. 43 at 2. 

Instead, she simply wrote that she served “Alameda County Sheriff.” Dkt. No. 10. However, 

even assuming counsel mistakenly omitted the name of the particular sheriff she served, her proof 

of service is nonetheless dubious. The proof of service alleges counsel served the summons on an 

Alameda County Sheriff at 1221 Oak Street in Oakland, CA, but that is not the ACSO’s address. 

Dkt. No. 45, Ex. 1 at 2. The correct address is 1401 Lakeside Drive, 7th Floor, Oakland, CA. 

Case 3:14-cv-01810-JD Document 48 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 45-1. In addition, the Alameda County Sheriff has declared under oath that he had not 

been served by plaintiff in July 2014. Id. 

Counsel also stated in her declaration that she had extensive discussions with opposing 

counsel, Greg Walker, regarding the ACSO’s failure to file a responsive pleading. Dkt. No. 42. 

But Mr. Walker is the mediator in this matter, and not opposing counsel, and the discussion she 

cites to with the actual opposing counsel does not mention the lack of a responsive pleading. Dkt. 

No. 46. 

Overall, plaintiff’s counsel has shown no diligence in serving the ACSO and has failed to 

present any persuasive reason to excuse that omission. Because the plaintiff has not shown good 

cause for the failure to properly serve the ACSO within the time limit required by Rule 4(m), the 

case is dismissed without prejudice and closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01810-JD Document 48 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2