Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02836/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02836-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Mildred Crawford
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 

MILDRED CRAWFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2836-EFB 

ORDER 

On January 8, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

and ordered plaintiff to submit documents for service of process to the United States Marshal 

within 14 days. ECF No. 4. She was also ordered to file a statement with the court providing that 

such documents had been submitted to the Marshal. Id. Plaintiff, however, failed to comply with 

that order. Accordingly, on April 20, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff, within 14 days, to comply 

with the January 8, 2015 order. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was also admonished that failure to do so 

would result in dismissal of this case. Id. 

Despite the April 20 order, there is no indication that plaintiff submitted documents for 

service of process to the Marshal. Rather, the docket reflects that plaintiff’s counsel, rather than 

submitting the documents to the Marshal as ordered by this court, attempted to personally serve 

defendant. A proof of service filed by plaintiff indicates that on May 4, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel 

Case 2:14-cv-02836-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/23/15 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

left a copy of the summons and complaint with Stephen Leung, Administrative Officer for the 

Social Security Administration, at 160 Spear Street, Ste. 800, San Francisco, California. ECF No. 

9. There is no indication, however, that counsel served the United States Attorney for the Eastern 

District of California and the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C., as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i). Thus, despite counsel’s efforts, defendant has 

still not been properly served.1

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the court orders “may be grounds for 

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall comply with the court’s 

January 8, 2015 order. 

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within fourteen days from the date of this order, 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this court’s orders and/or 

failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall show cause, in writing, within fourteen days from the date of 

this order, why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to comply with this court’s orders. 

4. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in dismiss of this action for 

failure to follow court orders, for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by 

Rule 4(m), and/or for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). 

DATED: November 19, 2015. 

 1

 On November 15, 2015, plaintiff requested the clerk enter defendant’s default. ECF No. 

12. That request was denied due to defective service of process. ECF No. 13. 

Case 2:14-cv-02836-EFB Document 14 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 2