Herrick v. City of Bellingham

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00085
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CHARLES R. HERRICK, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00085-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 CITY OF BELLINGHAM, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s May 6, 2025 17 Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 4. In that Order, Judge Leupold cautioned Plaintiff Charles R. 18 Herrick that “[t]he time for serving the summons and Complaint [has] expired,” “no proof of 19 service has been filed as to any named Defendant,” and “no attorney has entered an appearance on 20 behalf of the Defendants.” Id. at 1. Judge Leupold therefore ordered Mr. Herrick to show cause 21 “why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve” on or before 22 May 28, 2025, id., to which Mr. Herrick timely responded, Dkt. No. 5. However, Mr. Herrick did 23 not provide good cause therein for an extension of time to serve Defendants, and still has failed to 24 serve them despite Judge Leupold’s order flagging the issue. 1 “An individual or entity named as a defendant is not obliged to engage in litigation unless 2 notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process.” Murphy Bros., 3 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999); see also Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. 4 Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (“Before a federal court may exercise personal

5 jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be 6 satisfied.”). And when, as here, “a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 7 filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 8 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The district court must extend the 90-day period upon a showing of good 10 cause and, absent such a showing, retains broad discretion to dismiss the action or extend the 11 period for service. Id.; see In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001); Efaw v. Williams, 473 12 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). “[I]f good cause is not established, the district court may extend 13 time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 14 1198 (9th Cir. 2009).

15 Here, more than 90 days have elapsed since Mr. Herrick filed his complaint, and he has 16 failed served any Defendant. See Dkt. No. 4 at 1 (flagging the same). Because Defendants have 17 not waived service, Mr. Herrick must serve them as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 4(m). In light of Mr. Herrick’s pro se status, however, the Court will provide him with one more 19 opportunity to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either by showing good cause 20 for an extension of time within which he must serve Defendants or by providing proof of service.1 21 The Court thus declines to discharge Judge Leupold’s prior order, Dkt. No. 4, and instead further 22

23 1 The Court notes that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s “Pro Se Guide,” https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ProSeGuidetoFilingYourLawsuitinFederalCourt.pdf, provides 24 guidance for pro se litigants on various topics, including the service requirement. 1 ORDERS Mr. Herrick, within 30 days of this Order, to show cause why the Court should not 2 dismiss his claims against Defendants without prejudice for failure to timely serve them, either by 3 filing proof of service or by requesting an extension for good cause of the 90-day filing period. 4 Mr. Herrick’s response to this Order shall not exceed six pages. The Court will dismiss the case

5 without prejudice absent a timely response. 6 Dated this 16th day of July, 2025. 7 A 8 Lauren King United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23