Sandoval

Sandoval v. Guldseth

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 11, 20223:19-cv-01584California1,238 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

21 Plaintiff Alberto Sandoval, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 22 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 23, 2019 [ECF No. 1]. He filed a First 23 Amended Complaint on January 31, 2020 [ECF No. 8]. On April 1, 2020, the Court 24 issued an Order Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of First Amended Complaint 25 upon Defendants David Guldseth, M.D., and Roman M. Cham, M.D. [ECF No. 9]. A

27 1 Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he initiated this case. He has subsequently been released from 28 Process Receipt and Return reflecting service by the U.S. Marshal on May 20, 2020, upon Defendant Guldseth was filed with the court [ECF No. 15]. According to the court docket, service was never effectuated on Defendant Cham. On February 4, 2022, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause stating: [T]he Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims against Defendant Cham should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 4(m) and the court’s inherent authority on or before February 22, 2022.

8 Plaintiff is warned that a failure to file an adequate response to this …

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.