Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02130/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02130-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

ROBERT MARTINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff commenced this action in November 2021. To date, none of the defendants have 

appeared in this action, and plaintiff has not filed proofs of service demonstrating that defendants 

were 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 

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

Case 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 12/02/22 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

(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 (“Any individual representing himself or 

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

these Local Rules.”). 

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: December 2, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 2