Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01695-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Paris A. Evans
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARIS A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner 

of Social Security,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-1695 DAD

ORDER

On October 16, 2014, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and ordered plaintiff to submit to the United States Marshal the documents necessary for 

service of process. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff was also ordered to file in this court a declaration 

stating the date on which the documents were submitted to the United States Marshal within five 

days after submitting those documents. 

Plaintiff, however, has filed no proof of service of the complaint upon the defendant and 

the defendant has not appeared in this action. Accordingly, on April 24, 2015, plaintiff was 

ordered to show cause in writing within fourteen days as to why this case should not be dismissed 

for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff was cautioned that the failure to file a timely 

response would result in the dismissal of this action. 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01695-DAD Document 7 Filed 08/03/15 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

The fourteen-day period provided by the order for plaintiff to show cause as to why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute has expired and plaintiff has not responded 

to the court’s order in any way. Moreover, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

provides that a defendant must be dismissed if service of the summons and complaint is not 

accomplished on the defendant within 120 days after the complaint was filed. Here, over nine 

months have passed since service of process was ordered and it appears that no defendant has 

been served. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Rule 4(m).

Dated: August 3, 2015

DAD:6

ddad1/orders.soc sec/evans1695.dlop.ord.docx

Case 2:14-cv-01695-DAD Document 7 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2