Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01575/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01575-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

MARTHA ZEPEDA OLIVARES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01575-JLT-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

MOTION REQUESTING RELIEF

ORDER VACATING THE MANDATORY 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

(ECF No. 24)

DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 23, 2024

Plaintiffs initiated this action on November 7, 2023 against Defendants City of Fresno and 

Unknown Law Enforcement Officers. (ECF No. 1.) The mandatory scheduling conference was 

initially set to occur on February 20, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) Given Plaintiffs had not filed any proof 

of service and no Defendant has filed a responsive pleading, the Court issued on order continuing 

the scheduling conference to March 26, 2024 and requiring Plaintiff to file a notice of status of 

service no later than February 13, 2024. (ECF No. 22.) 

On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they filed this action on 

November 7, 2023 just for the purpose of securing an ex parte order permitting Plaintiffs to 

perform a private autopsy on the decedent. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiffs proffer that when they filed 

the complaint, they “informed the Fresno City Attorney’s Office that the City of Fresno was 

intentionally not being served yet...and that an amended complaint would be filed as a matter of 

right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) prior to service.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs 

Case 1:23-cv-01575-JLT-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/24 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

27

28

2

assert that the complaint filed on November 7, 2023 must be amended to include more specific 

factual allegations, updated federal claims, and additional state law claims; however, Plaintiffs

state they anticipate obtaining “necessary provisional orders from the Fresno Superior Court in 

May 2024.” (Id.) As such, Plaintiffs inform the Court that an amended complaint will be filed on 

or before May 31, 2024, which they plan to serve on Defendants by June 30, 2024. (Id.) 

As stated in the Court’s standing order (ECF No. 5) and reiterated in the Court’s order for 

status of service (ECF No. 22), Rule 4(m) provides that “[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). “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. The order 

setting the scheduling conference in this matter additionally provides that: “plaintiff shall 

diligently pursue service of the summons and complaint....” (ECF No. 5 at 1.) “Failure to timely 

serve the summons and complaint may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal 

of unserved defendants.” (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiffs’ notice to the Court that (1) no service has been effected in over ninety days, and 

(2) Plaintiffs’ “plan” is to not effect service for an additional one hundred twenty days, is 

procedurally deficient to overcome the mandatory dismissal of this action under Rule 4(m). The 

Court shall order Plaintiffs to file a proper motion, supported by good cause, stating Plaintiffs’ 

requested relief, or, alternatively, dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:23-cv-01575-JLT-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/24 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs shall file a motion requesting relief no later than February 23, 2024; 

2. The initial scheduling conference set for March 26, 2024 at 11:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom 9 is VACATED; and

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of sanctions, up to and 

including dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01575-JLT-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/14/24 Page 3 of 3