Opinion
20-cv-2407-WQH-MSB
11-01-2021
MICHAEL P. FLOOD JR., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; DAVID S. CORTEZ; WILLIAM D. GORE; JULIA SANTANA; RYAN J. ROSE; STEVEN O. ASHKAR; ANDRIJANA JURISAGA; FLAVIO ALFARO; SANFORD A. TOYEN; KRISTEN M. TYSON; and DOES 1-31, Defendants.
ORDER
Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Judge
On July 29, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff Michael P. Flood Jr., proceeding pro se, to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendants. (ECF No. 18; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 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.”)). On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave to Serve Process Outside of the Ninety (90) Day Period. (ECF Nos. 1920). On September 15, 2021, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs Motion and ordering Plaintiff to serve the summons and Complaint on all Defendants on or before October 26, 2021. (ECF No. 25). The docket reflects that Plaintiff has filed proof of service as to all Defendants except Defendant Ryan J. Rose. (See ECF Nos. 18-1 at 6; 21; 22; 26).
This Order constitutes notice to Plaintiff that the Court will dismiss the action against Defendant Rose without prejudice unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff files (1) proof that service of the summons and First Amended Complaint was timely effectuated on Defendant Rose; or (2) a declaration under penalty of perjury showing good cause for the failure to timely effect service accompanied by a motion for leave to serve process outside of the period set by Court Order.