Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01064-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee
Defendant
Juana Flores
Plaintiff
United States Postal Service
Defendant
United States of America
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUANA FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(Docs. 9, 12)

Plaintiff Juana Flores (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 

September 5, 2024, against Defendants United States of America, United States Postal Service, and 

Jonathan Daniel Douglas Elysee (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1).

On November 22, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”) why sanctions 

should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and comply with the Court’s 

orders in serving the summonses and complaint in a timely manner. (Doc. 9). On November 27, 

2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel timely responded to the show cause order by filing a declaration and a 

return of service as to Defendants United States of America and United States Postal Service 

(“Government Defendants”) but did not file return of service as to Defendant Elysee. (Doc. 10). 

In his declaration, Counsel attests that he sent copies of the amended complaint “on rush order to 

serve Defendant Elysee at his last known address” and that he “anticipate[d] Defendant Elysee to 

be served within 7 days [e.g., not later than December 4, 2024], and all Answers on this matter to 

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 17 Filed 01/10/25 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

be filed no later than February 7, 2025.” (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12). Plaintiff’s Counsel declared that 

sanctions should not be imposed “due to Plaintiff’s on-going due diligence in pursuing this matter[,] 

and [t]his matter should not be dismissed since it is apparent that all parties will be served within 7 

days, and this matter will proceed forward in early 2025.” (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15).

On December 11, 2024, when the self-imposed deadline of Plaintiff’s Counsel to serve all

Defendants had passed without Plaintiff’s filing of proofs of service for all Defendants, the 

undersigned issued findings and recommendations that Defendant Elysee be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely 

effect service upon Defendant Elysee. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff timely filed objections in which he 

attested to ongoing efforts to serve Defendant Elysee. (Doc. 13).

On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed the summonses returned executed as to all Defendants. 

See (Doc. 14) (proof of service dated December 14, 2024, as to Defendant Jonathan Daniel Douglas 

Elysee); (Doc. 15) (proof of service dated December 18, 2024, as to Defendant United States Postal 

Office); (Doc. 16) (proof of service dated December 18, 2024, as to Defendant United States of 

America). 

In light of the Plaintiff’s filing of the return of service upon Defendant Elysee, the Court 

will vacate the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 12). Further, the Court will discharge its 

November 22, 2024, order to show cause. (Doc. 9).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 11, 2024 (Doc. 12), are 

VACATED; and

2. The Court’s November 22, 2024, order to show cause (Doc. 9) is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01064-KES-CDB Document 17 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 2