Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05038/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05038-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OMAR CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PETALUMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05038-MEJ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff Omar Chavez filed this civil rights complaint, at which 

time the matter was scheduled for a Case Management Conference (CMC) on February 12, 2015. 

As there was no indication that Plaintiff had served any of the named Defendants in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the Court vacated the CMC and ordered him to file a 

status report by February 19, 2015. Status Order, Dkt. No. 4. On February 19, Plaintiff’s counsel 

responded that he neglected to have the summons served because of other responsibilities. Status 

Report, Dkt. No. 7. Counsel anticipated that all Defendants would be served “within the next 

couple of weeks.” Id. Based on this response, the Court continued the CMC to April 2, 2015, and 

directed the parties to file a joint CMC statement by March 26. Dkt. No. 8. 

To date, no CMC statement has been received. Further, no proof of service of the 

summons and complaint has been filed. “If a defendant is not served within 120 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).

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing 

and no later than April 6, 2015, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve within 

the time required by Rule 4(m). The Court FURTHER ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this 

Case 3:14-cv-05038-MEJ Document 15 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. If 

a responsive declaration is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the declaration or 

conduct a hearing on April 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, San Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided to Plaintiff that the Court may 

dismiss the case without a hearing if no responsive declaration is filed. Thus, it is imperative that 

the Court receive a written response by the deadline above.

The April 2, 2015 CMC is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05038-MEJ Document 15 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 2