From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rindal v. Dixon

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 15, 2024
No. C24-0010JHC (W.D. Wash. May. 15, 2024)

Opinion

C24-0010JHC

05-15-2024

STEVEN MICHAEL RINDAL, Plaintiff, v. ROMAN S. DIXON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

John H. Chun United States District Judge

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the plaintiff's complaint and sets forth the specific requirements for doing so. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Rule 4(m), which provides the timeframe in which service must be effectuated, states in relevant part:

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. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
Id. Here, Plaintiff has failed to serve Defendants with a summons and a copy of Plaintiff's complaint within the timeframe provided in Rule 4(m).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4(m). If Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause for the failure, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.


Summaries of

Rindal v. Dixon

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
May 15, 2024
No. C24-0010JHC (W.D. Wash. May. 15, 2024)
Case details for

Rindal v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN MICHAEL RINDAL, Plaintiff, v. ROMAN S. DIXON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: May 15, 2024

Citations

No. C24-0010JHC (W.D. Wash. May. 15, 2024)