Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04902/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04902-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas H. Spitters
Plaintiff
Unknown
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS H. SPITTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04902-PJH 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

CONTINUANCE

Re: Dkt. No. 35

The court has received a letter from plaintiff Thomas H. Spitters (“plaintiff”), dated 

May 17, 2016. In the letter, the plaintiff asks the court to “continue legal proceedings until 

January 2018, or allow ten additional months continuance past the June 16, 2016 

required date for filing an amended complaint.” Dkt. 35. 

The court denies plaintiff’s request for a further continuance. Under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(m), plaintiff was required to serve the complaint upon defendants 

within 120 days of the complaint’s filing.

1 Because the complaint was filed on October 23, 

2015, the service deadline would have been February 22, 2016. The court has already 

granted an significant extension of that deadline. An additional ten month delay is simply 

unwarranted and unreasonable.

As stated in its prior orders, “plaintiff has until June 16, 2016 to (1) file an 

amended complaint naming all defendant(s), (2) obtain a summons, and (3) serve a copy 

 

1

The current version of Rule 4(m) allows only 90 days for service, but because the 

complaint in this case was filed before the amended rule became effective, the court will 

give plaintiff 120 days, rather than 90.

Case 4:15-cv-04902-PJH Document 36 Filed 05/26/16 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

of the complaint and the summons upon the defendant(s).” See Dkt. 34. If the complaint 

is not served upon defendants by this date, this case will be dismissed. See Dkt. 31.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04902-PJH Document 36 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 2