(PS) Bernhard v. County of San Joaquin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 11, 20222:21-cv-00948California702 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LLOYD THOMAS BERNARD, II; No. 2:21-cv-00948 JAM DB PS

STEPHANIE CELESTE TEJADA-

OTERO, Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 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). Plaintiffs commenced this action on May 25, 2021, by filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) On May 27, 2021, summons for the defendants were issued. (ECF No. 2.) That same day plaintiffs were served with a letter that advised plaintiffs that Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant must be dismissed if service of the summons and complaint is not accomplished on the defendant within 90 days after the complaint was filed. (ECF No. 3.) More than 90 days have passed, plaintiffs have taken no…

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.