Bernhard

Bernhard v. County of San Joaquin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 17, 20212:21-cv-00172California339 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LLOYD THOMAS BERNARD, II; No. 2:21-cv-0172 JAM DB PS

STEPHANIE CELESTE TEJADA-

OTERO, Plaintiffs, ORDER v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiffs Lloyd Thomas Bernard and Stephanie Celeste Tejada-Otero are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 4, 2021, the undersigned issued an order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiffs’ failure to serve a defendant in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 6.) On October 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed a response requesting a 90-day extension of time because they “are preparing to retain an attorney to represent them in this Federal matter[.]” (ECF No. 7 at 2.) Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.