Raveling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS DANIEL LAIPPLY; No. 2:22-cv-0984 DJC DB PS

EVANGELINA STAR LAIPPLY,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER v.

HEDI C. RAVELING,

15 Defendant. 17 Plaintiffs Thomas Daniel Laipply and Evangelina Star Laipply 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). Pending before the undersigned are plaintiffs’ motion for a 90-day extension of time to serve the defendant and a motion for alternative service of process on the defendant. (ECF Nos. 12 & 13.) Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good cause. The second is …