Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02530/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02530-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Pattie A. Coxey
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

PATTIE A. COXEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2530 GEB EFB 

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. 

 /

This action is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(15) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636. On December 15, 2009, the undersigned issued a scheduling order herein. Dckt. No. 7. 

That order directed plaintiff to complete service of process within twenty days from filing the

complaint and to file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service within ten days

thereafter. Id. On April 29, 2010, because the court file revealed that plaintiff had not filed a

certificate of service on defendant, as required by the December 15, 2009 order, the undersigned

ordered plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to follow court

orders and/or for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Later on April 29, 2010, plaintiff served the complaint, summons, and related documents

on defendant, and filed a certificate reflecting such service. Dckt. No. 10. On May 10, 2010,

Case 2:09-cv-02530-EFB Document 13 Filed 05/11/10 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

2

plaintiff’s counsel filed a response to the order to show cause, admitting failure to effect timely

service of process, but contending that the failure was due to oversight and excusable neglect by

plaintiff’s counsel. Dckt. No. 12. In that filing, plaintiff’s counsel requested relief from the

failure to timely serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Dckt. No. 12. 

Because Rule 60(b) only authorizes relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and no

such final judgment or order has been issued herein, plaintiff’s request for relief under that

section is denied. However, in light of plaintiff’s counsel’s filing and because plaintiff has now

served defendant, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has shown good cause for the failure to

serve defendant within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m), and therefore declines to dismiss the

case under that section. Accordingly, the April 29, 2010 order to show cause is discharged. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02530-EFB Document 13 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 2