Harrison v. Pick-N-Pull Auto Dismantlers

Opinion

ANTHONY M. HARRISON, No. 2:19-cv-01775 TLN AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, filed a complaint September 9, 2019, and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1. On that same day, new civil case documents were issued instructing plaintiff complete service of process on defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint. ECF No. 3 at 1, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to accomplish service within the timeline may result in dismissal of the action. Id. There are three defendants in this action: Pick- N-Pull Auto Dismantlers, Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., and Frank Wilkerson. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Plaintiff filed a “summons returned executed” on September 16, 2019. ECF No. 5. The document contains two purported “return of service” forms indicating that Maria Lara was the “server” and that she served unnamed recipients by certified mail. Id. at 1-2. There is no indication as to who was served, what was served, or where anything was sent. Id. at 1-3. Further, “certified mail is not sufficient service under either prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1), which governs service of corporations, partnerships, or associations within the United States. Rule 4(h)(1) does not provide for service by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A), (B); see also Yates v. Baldwin, 633 F.3d 669, 672 (8th Cir.2011) (noting that certified mail does not constitute “delivering” under Rule 4).” Schauf v. Am. Airlines, No. 1:15-cv-01172-SKO, 2015 WL 5647343, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2015). Thus, it appears plaintiff has failed to timely effectuate service in this case. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with court orders or the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause, in writing no later than January 22, 2020, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; 2. Plaintiff’s filing of a proof of service compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon each defendant will be deemed good cause shown; and 3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the case will be dismissed. DATED: January 7, 2020 ~ AMhun—Clorne ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE