(PS) Martinson v. City of Sacramento
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MARTINSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
13 v. FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS
15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff commenced this action in November 2021. To date, none of the defendants have 18 appeared in this action, and plaintiff has not filed proofs of service demonstrating that defendants 19 were properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days 21 after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must 22 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 23 specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 24 failure, the court must extend the time for service for an…