Bernhard v. County of San Joaquin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LLOYD THOMAS BERNARD, II; No. 2:21-cv-0172 JAM DB PS STEPHANIE CELESTE TEJADA- 12 OTERO, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs Lloyd Thomas Bernard and Stephanie Celeste Tejada-Otero are proceeding in 19 this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 20 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 4, 2021, the undersigned issued an order to 21 show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiffs’ failure to serve a 22 defendant in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 6.) On 23 October 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed a response requesting a 90-day extension of time because they 24 “are preparing to retain an attorney to represent them in this Federal matter[.]” (ECF No. 7 at 2.) 25 Rule 4(m) provides two avenues for relief. The first is mandatory: the district court must extend time for service upon a showing of 26 good cause. The second is discretionary: if good cause is not established, the district court may extend time for service upon a 27 showing of excusable neglect. 28 Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Lemoge v. United States, 587 1 | F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009)). Here, the undersigned finds good cause to grant plaintiffs an 2 | extension of time. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs’ October 14, 2021 request (ECF No. 7) is granted; and 5 2. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days from December 17, 2021 to serve a defendant in 6 | compliance with Rule 4. 7 || Dated: December 14, 2021 8 9 10 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | DLB:6 73 DB\orders\orders.pro se\bernhard0172.R4.eot.ord

24 25 26 27 28