Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01557/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01557-1/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 

JOHN OBASOHAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PETER LEMOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01557 JAM AC PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has paid the filing fee. The action was 

accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 

Rule”) 302(c)(21). On August 12, 2019, a scheduling order was issued in this case ordering the 

plaintiff to serve a copy of the scheduling order and complete service of process on defendants 

within 90 days of filing the complaint. ECF No. 2 at 1. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to 

complete service within 90 days may result in dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 40(m). Id. 

The deadline passed, and no certificate of service was filed. On January 6, 2020, the court issued 

an order to show cause no later than January 20, 2020 why this case should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute. ECF No. 7. The order specified that a showing of proof of service on 

defendants would be deemed good cause, and that failure to comply with the order would result in 

a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2. 

//// 

Case 2:19-cv-01557-DAD-AC Document 10 Filed 01/22/20 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 

 On January 17, 2020, plaintiff filed two documents: (1) a Response to the order to show 

cause (ECF No. 8), and (2) a copy of the summons with “Notice to Eric Jones” hand-written at 

the top (ECF No. 9). Although the Response is 73 pages in length, it does not contain any proof 

of service, indicate any attempt to serve or intention to serve the defendants, or explain why 

service could not be timely effectuated. See ECF No. 8. To the contrary, the Response is entirely 

non-responsive to the Order to Show Cause, and appears to consist of factual material related to 

the underlying property dispute and related state court proceedings. Id. 

The “Notice to Eric Jones,” ECF No. 9, likewise does not address the service issue. There 

is nobody named “Eric Jones” listed as a defendant in this case. The copy of the summons bears 

a stamp from the Stockton Police Department dated August 13, 2019, but the Stockton Police 

Department is likewise not a named defendant and the stamp does not provide any information 

about how the Police Department received a copy of the summons. There is no proof of service 

attached, and no explanation of any attempts to serve the summons and complaint on the named 

defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 22, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-01557-DAD-AC Document 10 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2