Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02538/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02538-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHADZHIMURAD BABATOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:23-cv-02538-DJC-JDP (PS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

In November 2023, plaintiff commenced this action against Ford Motor Company and 

paid the required filing fee. To date, defendant has not appeared in this action, and plaintiff has 

not filed proof of service demonstrating that defendant was properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(l). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Although a pro 

se litigants are generally afforded more latitude than one represented by counsel, a party’s pro se 

status does not constitute “good cause” for failing to timely effect service. See King v. Atiyeh, 

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 

Case 2:23-cv-02538-DJC-JDP Document 5 Filed 04/30/24 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

govern other litigants.”); Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987)

(holding that ignorance of service requirements does not constitute “good cause” for failure to 

timely effect service); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (“Any individual representing himself or 

herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law.”). Accordingly, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why 

this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve defendant.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen days from the date of this order why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed 

by Rule 4(m).

2. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect services of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02538-DJC-JDP Document 5 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 2