From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniel v. Padilla

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 29, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0682 WBS JFM PS (E.D. Cal. May. 29, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-0682 WBS JFM PS.

May 29, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. On April 11, 2008, plaintiff filed the summons in this action, but failed to complete the return of service. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff failed to identify who was personally served and where service of process was accomplished. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient information to determine whether plaintiff accomplished service of process in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be granted an extension of time in which to provide proof of service on defendants named in the complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) requires that a defendant must be served within 120 days from April 1, 2008, the date the complaint was filed. The scheduling conference presently set for August 28, 2008, will be continued.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a return of service attesting to service of process on the named defendants as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4; and

2. The August 28, 2008 status conference is continued to Thursday, September 11, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom #26, before the undersigned.


Summaries of

Daniel v. Padilla

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 29, 2008
No. CIV S-08-0682 WBS JFM PS (E.D. Cal. May. 29, 2008)
Case details for

Daniel v. Padilla

Case Details

Full title:MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. B. PADILLA, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 29, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-0682 WBS JFM PS (E.D. Cal. May. 29, 2008)