Azucena

Azucena v. Runjyin

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 15, 20244:23-cv-03234California568 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CALEB J. AZUCENA, Case No. 23-cv-03234-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR

v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT

SERVICE ON DEFENDANT RUNJYIN

RUNJYIN, Re: Dkt. No. 13 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff has filed a Bivens action against United States Customs and Border Protection agent Runjyin. On April 22, 2024, the Court informed Plaintiff that the United States Marshal had been unable to effect service on defendant Runjyin. The United States Marshal had been informed by the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) that there was no employee with Runjyin as either a first or last name. Dkt. No. 12. The Court ordered Plaintiff to, by May 19, 2024, either effect service on defendant Runjyin or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate defendant Runjyin such that the Marshal is able to effect service. Id. The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to comply with this deadline…

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.