Opinion
2:21-cv-0172 JAM DB PS
12-14-2021
LLOYD THOMAS BERNARD, II; STEPHANIE CELESTE TEJADA-OTERO, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Lloyd Thomas Bernard and Stephanie Celeste Tejada-Otero are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 4, 2021, the undersigned issued an order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiffs' failure to serve a defendant in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 6.) On October 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed a response requesting a 90-day extension of time because they “are preparing to retain an attorney to represent them in this Federal matter[.]” (ECF No. 7 at 2.)
Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of good cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009)). Here, the undersigned finds good cause to grant plaintiffs an extension of time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' October 14, 2021 request (ECF No. 7) is granted; and
2. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days from December 17, 2021 to serve a defendant in compliance with Rule 4.