Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00999-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Los Rios Community College District
Defendant
Don Todd
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON TODD, No. CIV.S-05-0999 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

JOHN DOE 1, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

__________________________/

Following a June 24, 2005, hearing in this removal action,

the undersigned granted the Los Rios Community College District’s

motion to dismiss due to insufficiency of process and insufficiency

of service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5), respectively. The undersigned quashed the

attempted service in this action and granted plaintiff up to and

including September 16, 2005, which was one hundred twenty (120) days

after the date of removal in this case, to complete service of

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00999-DFL -DAD Document 31 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f

service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant

within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon

motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall

dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant ....”. The

weight of authority supports the proposition that the 120-day period

runs from the date of removal as opposed to the date the state court

action was filed. See Lawrence v. Hanson, 197 F. Supp. 2d 533, 538

(W.D. Va. 2002); Eccles v. National Semiconductor Corp., 10 F. Supp.

2d 514, 520 (D. Md. 1998).

2 As is the case with a related action in this court, a liberal

construction of plaintiff’s complaint indicates that this matter

concerns, at least tangentially, the well-known case of Nikolai

Soltys, an individual who was the subject of a major manhunt in

Northern California in 2001 following the alleged murder of his

pregnant wife, son and other relatives. Mr. Soltys was apprehended

in 2001 and died in the Sacramento County Jail while criminal

proceedings were pending. The related action is Todd v. Day, No.

CIV.S-05-0755 DFL DAD PS.

2

process and file proof of such service with the Clerk of the Court.1

Plaintiff was forewarned that the failure to timely comply with the

terms of the court’s order would result in a recommendation of

dismissal. (See Order filed June 27, 2005.)

The required time has expired and plaintiff has not

completed service of process as directed. Therefore, the undersigned

will recommend that this action be dismissed.

Plaintiff has filed a “Request for In Camera Review of

Soltyz Murder Report” and a request for extension of time to complete

service of process. Plaintiff argues that “the Soltyz murder report

#187-PC 0169534 from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s department”

should be reviewed by the court in camera so as to assist plaintiff

in his efforts to ascertain the identity of the named John Doe

defendant.2 However, plaintiff has not shown that the law

enforcement report in question reveals the identity of the Doe

Case 2:05-cv-00999-DFL -DAD Document 31 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

defendant. Nor has plaintiff made a proper discovery request for the

report under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or properly brought

this issue before the undersigned by way of motion. Therefore, the

requests for in camera review and extension of time will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s requests

for in camera review and extension of time are denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 21, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\todd0999.order.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00999-DFL -DAD Document 31 Filed 10/21/05 Page 3 of 3