Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02237/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02237-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 - 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE J. WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX

PARTE REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS

vs.

R. ANTI, LT.; LEAPHART, CPT;

R. DAVIS, LT.; C. MCGUIERE, C/O;

K. THOMAS, C/O; J. RODRIGUEZ, C/O;

J. SPINNEY, MTA; BALTINEZ, R.N.; and

DR. SAND,

Defendants.

On June 7, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve defendants as required by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4 within 30 days of the date the Court's order was entered. On July 2, 2007,

summonses were issued as to all Defendants. Also on July 2, Plaintiff filed a motion

purporting to be a noticed motion with a hearing date of July 1, 2007, in which he requests

an additional 45 days in which to serve Defendants. The Court construes this as an ex parte

application for extension of time (the "Application"). Although the Application refers to "the

papers, records, and attached declaration of plaintiff, also by this reference made a part of

this motion," the Application consisted of a two-page notice with no attachments other than

a proof of service.

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02237-LAB-WMC Document 8 Filed 07/10/07 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 - 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

Plaintiff states he forwarded copies of the summons to the Clerk, but does not state

when he did so. Therefore, the Court has no basis on which to conclude Plaintiff was

diligent in attempting to obtain the summonses. Plaintiff points out he "is an incarcerated

inmate and must process all procedures by United States Postal Service." The Court was

aware of these facts at the time the June 7, 2007 order was issued and took them into

account in setting the time limit. Although Plaintiff also knew these facts, he waited until near

the expiration of the time limit in which to request an extension of time. The Court has

previously admonished Plaintiff he must fulfill his responsibilities promptly and has warned

him of the possibility of dismissal. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown good

cause for an extension of time in which to serve Defendants as ordered.

The wording of Plaintiff's request suggests that perhaps, instead of an extension of

time in which to serve Defendants, he was requesting an extension of time in which to file

proof of service. The Court's order of June 7, 2007 did not set a particular time for filing

proof of service of process. Other than the 120-day limit set in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), which

Plaintiff has already exceeded, no particular time limit is set within which to file proof of

service. If Plaintiff misunderstood the Court's order and believed he was being ordered to

file proof of service within 30 days of June 7, his request for an extension of time was

unnecessary.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file proof of service promptly as to all Defendants, as

provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l), showing that Plaintiff has complied with the Court's order

of June 7, 2007. The affidavit must specify the date service was accomplished on each

Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to file all proofs of service as ordered no later than July 30,

2007, the complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) without further

notice to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 10, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02237-LAB-WMC Document 8 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 2