Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-06040/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-06040-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EUREKA DIVISION

RONALD EARL PLOOF,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-06040-NJV

ORDER DISMISSING REMAINING 

DEFENDANTS AND DIRECTING 

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

Defendants the Internal Revenue Service; John Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal 

Revenue Service; Congressman Jared Huffman; the United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission; Jack Hardy; Roy Sheetz, and Amy Rosenthal were previously dismissed from this 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 23.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides:

If 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.

This action was filed on December 23, 2015. Plaintiff has not served any of the remaining 

Defendants. On two separate occasions, Plaintiff has been alerted to the need to serve Defendants 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, on February 11, 2016, the Clerk mailed 

Plaintiff a copy of the court's Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains instructions 

regarding service of process. Second, the federal Defendants raised the issue of failure to serve in 

their Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17.) Despite being thus informed of the requirements of service of 

Case 1:15-cv-06040-NJV Document 24 Filed 05/24/16 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

process, Plaintiff has not served the remaining named Defendants.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the remaining Defendants are dismissed 

from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to pursue a 

separate action against them. Because no Defendants remain in this case, the Clerk is directed to 

enter judgment and to terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016.

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-06040-NJV Document 24 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 2