Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01451/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:0552fi Freedom of Information 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERIC MACK WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv1451-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL

vs. TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants.

“Rule 4(m) provides that, if a plaintiff has good cause for not serving a complaint

within 120 days after filing it, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate

period.” De Tie v. Orange Cty., 152 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 1998). Roderic Wright hasn’t

shown good cause. His motion alludes to statute of limitations issues, but says nothing about

how they relate to his claims. His attorney’s declaration says the IRS didn’t provide

paperwork until December 1, 2017, but again, says nothing about how that fact relates to

Wright’s decision to let his complaint sit on the Court’s docket for five months. Nonetheless,

the Court exercises its discretion to allow Wright to serve his complaint by Friday December

29, 2017. If he doesn’t, this action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns

United States District Judge

- 1 -

Case 3:17-cv-01451-LAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 12/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 1