Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00248/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00248-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Charles E. Munson

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0248 DFL CMK PS

vs.

Gordon R. England, Secretary of the 

Navy, 

Defendant.

 / ORDER

On July 14, 2004, this court ordered plaintiff to show cause why he had failed to

serve defendants with a copy of his complaint within 120 days of filing, as required by Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court discharged the show cause order on August 30, 2004

and ordered plaintiff to serve defendant within sixty days. To date, plaintiff has still not served

defendant with a copy of his complaint. 

On April 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Response to Order to Show Cause,” which

sought permission from the court to serve defendant with his complaint. Plaintiff stated that he

had delayed serving defendant because plaintiff has been attempting to find an attorney and

because he has been hospitalized. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to serve defendant and

cautioned him that failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation of

dismissal. 

Case 2:04-cv-00248-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 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

2

On May 31, 2005, plaintiff sent a letter to the court advising that he had attempted

to serve defendant, but that service had been refused. Plaintiff also detailed several medical

ailments and noted that he was still seeking an attorney. The court is not unsympathetic to

plaintiff’s difficulties in serving defendant. However, the court has an obligation to effectively

manage its docket and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is reminded

that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to effect service on the defendants. See e.g., Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1993)(abrogated on other grounds)(stating that pro-se prisoner

defendant bears the burden of furnishing the necessary information to identify and serve

defendant). Plaintiff has had numerous chances and several months to locate and properly serve

defendant. The court noted in its previous order that no further extensions would be given. 

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff must properly serve defendants within thirty days

from the courts May 11, 2005 order. Failure to serve defendant will result in a recommendation

that this case be dismissed. 

DATED: June 9, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00248-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 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

Case 2:04-cv-00248-JAM-CMK Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3