Opinion
Ricardo Garcia, Plaintiff, Pro se, Adelanto, CA.
Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO SERVE
Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge.
On May 14, 2015, plaintiff, who is detained in an Immigration Customs and Enforcement Detention Center in Adelanto, California, filed a civil rights complaint (" Complaint") against the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Does 1-10. (ECF Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments arising from the Doe defendants' entry into plaintiff's home and use of force on May 15, 2013. (ECF Docket 1.) Plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee in full and a 21-day summons was issued. ( See ECF Docket Nos. 1, 2.)
Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff was required to serve the defendants within 120 days after the Complaint was filed, i.e. no later than September 14, 2015. However, to date, nothing has been filed in this case to indicate that service was effected on or before the September 14, 2015 deadline -- or in the 11 days since.
Rule 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m). By no later than October 26, 2015, plaintiff must file a response to this Order that: (1) explains, in detail, why he has failed to proceed with service of process efforts; and (2) establishes good cause for his inaction. Alternatively, Plaintiff may request the voluntary dismissal of the action with no further consequence.
Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that neither his pro se status nor any " inadvertent error or ignorance of the governing rules" can establish good cause for his noncompliance with Rule 4(m). See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) ( per curiam ) (" Pro se plaintiffs are bound by the rules of procedure."); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1992) ( overruled on other grounds ) (" Although there is a 'good cause' exception . . . it applies only in limited circumstances, and inadvertent error or ignorance of governing rules alone will not excuse a litigant's failure to effect timely service.").
If plaintiff fails to file a response to this Order on or before October 26, 2015, or if he does not establish good cause in his response, the case may be dismissed, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.