(PS) Martinson v. City of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT MARTINSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02130-DAD-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 In November 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint and paid the required filing fee. None of the defendants have appeared, and plaintiff initially failed to file proofs of service demonstrating that defendants were properly served. Accordingly, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect proper service of process within the time prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF No. 8. Plaintiff responded to that order, stating that “Defendant was served on June 30th 2022 by a process server.” ECF No. 9. He also submitted a proof of service for one of the defendants, City of Sacramento, reflecting that a copy of the summons and complaint was delivered to the Sacramento City Attorney’s Office on June 3, 2023. Id. at 2. As an initial matter,…