From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Terry v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 13, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1842 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1842 GGH P

10-13-2011

NICK TERRY, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. By order, filed on February 2, 2011 (docket # 19), plaintiff was directed to complete service of process of his second amended complaint within sixty days in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Docket # 19. In the order, plaintiff was informed that he was responsible for service of process and was cautioned that this action might be dismissed if service of process were not accomplished within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date the complaint was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff and defendants were further directed that they must submit a status report within 120 days from the date of the February 1, 2011, order. The time for submitting the parties' status reports has long expired. Moreover, there is nothing in the docket to indicate that any defendant has ever been served.

Although plaintiff paid the filing fee in full, he was provided ample opportunity to file an in forma pauperis affidavit to determine if he might qualify for in forma pauperis status (see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)) so that he would not be responsible for service of process. See orders, filed on August 3, 2010, September 1, 2010, October 4, 2010, and on November 10, 2010. Plaintiff ultimately indicated that he could not qualify for in forma pauperis due to the amount of his financial resources. See orders, filed on February 2, 2011 (docket # 18 & # 19), referencing docket # 17.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff must show cause within fourteen days why all defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), or, alternatively, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Terry v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 13, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1842 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Terry v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:NICK TERRY, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 13, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1842 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)