Opinion
CV 19-09872-JLS (AS)
02-22-2022
Webster S. Lucas v. Jim McDonnell, et. al.,
Present: The Honorable Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Josephine L. Staton United States District Judge
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANT MCDONNELL
On January 14, 2020, Webster S. Lucas ("Plaintiff), who was then a California inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, proceeding pro se. filed a Fust Amended Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the following three Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department ("LASD") officers in then individual and official capacities: (1) Sheriff Jim McDonnell; (2) Deputy Sheriff Hollis; and (3) Sergeant Canfield. ("First Amended Complaint," Dkt. No. 6). On February 18, 2020, the Court determined that the First Amended Complaint could be served on Defendants and issued orders directing the United States Marshal to seive process on Defendants in their individual and official capacities. (Dkt. Nos. 10-12). Defendants Hollis and Canfield each subsequently waived service and appeared in the case. (See Dkt. Nos. 24, 38).
Plaintiff was released from prison on January 11. 2021. (See Dkt. No. 36; Dkt. No. 60 at 34-35 (CM/ECF page numbers)).
Defendants Hollis and Canfield's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 59) is currently pending before the Court.
Defendant McDonnell, however, has not appeared, and the Court's docket reflects that the United States Marshal was unable to seive McDonnell because he is no longer employed by LASD. (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18). Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the Comt - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that seivice be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for seivice for an appropriate period."
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than Monday, March 7, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Jim McDonnell for failure to complete service of the operative complaint in a timely manner. This Order may be discharged upon the filing of an amended USM-285 form ("Process Receipt and Return") and form notice of submission setting forth an address where Jim McDonnell can be served and any special instructions or other information to assist with service, or by filing a declaration under penalty of perjury stating why Plaintiff is unable to do so.
The Clerk is directed to attach to this Order a copy of the Court's Order re service of process, dated February 18, 2020 (Dkt. No. 11), and provide Plaintiff with a USM-285 fonn, copies of the Order Directing Service, and a form Notice of Submission.
If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action against Defendant McDonnell, he may request a voluntary dismissal of this action against McDonnell without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). A notice of dismissal fonn is attached for Plaintiffs convenience.
Plaintiff is warned that a failure to timely respond to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to Jim McDonnell with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.