Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01757/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01757-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Defendant
Christopher Edward White
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

CHRISTOPHER EDWARD WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01757-KAW 

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 14

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, commenced this Social Security case on April 16, 

2014. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On June 12, 2014, he consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 5.) 

Summons was issued on February 19, 2015. (Summons, Dkt. No. 12.) Since the issuance 

of summons, Plaintiff has not filed a certificate of service showing that the Defendant has been 

served within the 120-day deadline set forth in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

or that Defendant has been served as required by Rule 4(i).1 

Accordingly, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff "to show cause why this matter 

should not be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve Defendant." (Nov. 9, 2015 OSC, 

Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff was to file a written response to the order within 14 days. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed a timely response on November 21, 2015. (Pl.'s Response, Dkt. No. 14.) 

The filing, however, does not sufficiently respond to the order to show cause in that it fails to 

address why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to timely and properly serve 

 

1 On February 5, 2015, prior to the issuance of summons, Plaintiff did file a certificate of service. 

That certificate, however, indicates that the Office of the Regional Chief Counsel for the Social 

Security Administration was the only party served.

Case 4:14-cv-01757-KAW Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 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

Defendant. It does not address whether service was timely under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure or whether service was properly effected under Rule 4(i). As to the former, 

Plaintiff merely states: "[a] OneLegal, LLC Order Status document states that the service date 

was March 3, 2015 at 12:30PM. I surmise that the Social Security Administrative has taken the 

position that the Summons was not served in a timely manner." (Id. at 2.) Given the filing date of 

this case, April 16, 2014, and the 120-day time limit set forth in Rule 4(m), the Court is inclined to 

find that such a position would be correct. Plaintiff, however, does not state his position on the 

issue.

As to the latter, the only certificate of service Plaintiff filed with his response shows that 

the only party served was the Office of Regional Chief Counsel for the Social Security 

Administration. This suggests Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 4(i), which also requires 

service on the local U.S. attorney's office and the Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(i). Plaintiff did not address this issue in his response.

The Court will provide Plaintiff one additional opportunity to address these issues in a 

supplemental response, which shall be filed within 14 days of this order. To be clear, Plaintiff 

shall address (1) whether service was timely under Rule 4(m) and, if not, why the case should not 

be dismissed,2and (2) whether service was effected as required by Rule 4(i). If Plaintiff fails to 

satisfactorily address these issues, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to timely and 

properly serve Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/24/15

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that "[i]f a defendant is not served 120 days after 

the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against the 

defendant . . . ."

Case 4:14-cv-01757-KAW Document 15 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2