Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01775/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01775-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony M. Harrison
Plaintiff
Pick-N-Pull Auto Dismantlers
Defendant
Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.
Defendant
Frank Wilkerson
Defendant

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 

ANTHONY M. HARRISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PICK-N-PULL AUTO DISMANTLERS, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01775 TLN AC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, filed a complaint September 9, 2019, and paid the filing fee. 

ECF No. 1. On that same day, new civil case documents were issued instructing plaintiff 

complete service of process on defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint. ECF No. 3 at 1, 

citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to accomplish service within the 

timeline may result in dismissal of the action. Id. There are three defendants in this action: PickN-Pull Auto Dismantlers, Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., and Frank Wilkerson. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. 

 Plaintiff filed a “summons returned executed” on September 16, 2019. ECF No. 5. The 

document contains two purported “return of service” forms indicating that Maria Lara was the 

“server” and that she served unnamed recipients by certified mail. Id. at 1-2. There is no 

indication as to who was served, what was served, or where anything was sent. Id. at 1-3. 

Further, “certified mail is not sufficient service under either prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1), 

which governs service of corporations, partnerships, or associations within the United States. 

Case 2:19-cv-01775-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/08/20 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 

Rule 4(h)(1) does not provide for service by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A), (B); see also 

Yates v. Baldwin, 633 F.3d 669, 672 (8th Cir.2011) (noting that certified mail does not constitute 

“delivering” under Rule 4).” Schauf v. Am. Airlines, No. 1:15-cv-01172-SKO, 2015 WL 

5647343, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2015). Thus, it appears plaintiff has failed to timely 

effectuate service in this case. 

 Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with court orders or the Local Rules “may 

be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 

inherent power of the Court.” 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause, in writing no later than January 22, 2020, why this 

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; 

2. Plaintiff’s filing of a proof of service compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

upon each defendant will be deemed good cause shown; and 

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the case will be dismissed. 

DATED: January 7, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-01775-TLN-AC Document 6 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2