Opinion
No. C10-1006.
August 2, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion (docket number 5) filed by the Plaintiff pro se on July 23, 2010. While the motion consists only of sentence fragments, it appears to seek an extension of time to serve notice on the defendant, an extension of time for submitting a proposed scheduling order and discovery plan, and requests the appointment of counsel. Attached to the motion is a letter to the Clerk of Court, in which Plaintiff "respectfully plead[s] to the court for help in my case."
It is Plaintiff's responsibility to have the defendant timely served pursuant to the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Rule 4(m) states:
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.
Here, the Complaint was filed on March 12, 2010. Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to serve the defendant not later than July 12, 2010. There is no indication in the file that Plaintiff has served the defendant, and her motion suggests that service has not, in fact, been perfected. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for failing to timely serve the defendant and. therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff's instant motion for an extension was filed out-of-time. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint (docket number 3) filed by the Plaintiff on March 12, 2010 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.