Adam J. Tenser v. Robert Joshua Ryan

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 20192:19-cv-05496California785 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: CV 19-5496 VBF (RAO) Date: September 25, 2019 Title: Adam J. Tenser et al. v. Robert Joshua Ryan et al.

Present: The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Donnamarie Luengo N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

N/A N/A

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS

On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff Adam J. Tenser (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Robert Joshua Ryan, Beth Silverman, Tannaz Mokayef, William Cotter, Robert Martindale, Maurice Jollif, Jay Velasquez, Elizabeth Dumais Miller, and multiple Does. Dkt. No. 1. Summons were issued as to the eight named defendants. Dkt. Nos. 3-10. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Proof of Service by Mail.” Dkt. No. 17. To date, no defendants have appeared in the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (“Rule 4”) governs service of process in federal actions. Rule 4(m)…

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.