Barron

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN BARRON, Case No.: 24-CV-2362 TWR (LR)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

13 v. OF TIME PURSUANT TO RULE 4(m) 14 IMPERIAL COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; FAMILY COURT OF

15

IMPERIAL VALLEY; IMPERIAL

16 VALLEY HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES; IMPERIAL CHILD

17

SUPPORT SERVICES; SAMUEL

18 CASTRO; A. De LEON; L. AVILA;

CYNTHIA LIGGETT; VICTOR NUNEZ;

19

MICHAEL TERRIQUEZ; LIZA

20 BARRAZA; LISA BAKER; and RANDY

RUTTEN,

21 Defendants. 22 23 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ruben Barron’s Response (“Response,” ECF 24 No. 7) to this Court’s Order to Show Cause on or before August 6, 2025, why the action 25 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (See ECF No. 6). Plaintiff appears to 26 have believed that default and default judgement were granted when the Clerk of the Court 27 stamped and initialed the respective form. (See Response at 1.) This is incorrect. (See 28 ECF No. 4; ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Clerk…