Karl Bohee v. Clinton Harrell

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04990
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 19-4990-GW (KS) Date: September 23, 2019 Title Karl Bohee v. Clinton Harrell et al

Present: The Honorable: Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Gay Roberson Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff, a California resident proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 (“Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 11, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service within 90 days of filing the Complaint – that is, no later than September 5, 2019 (Dkt. No. 6), and on June 20, 2019, the Clerk issued the summons (Dkt. No. 7). Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “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.” Neither a litigant’s pro se status nor his lack of legal sophistication is good cause for his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Wennihan v. AHCCCS, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1043 (D. Ariz. 2005); see also Springer v. Best, 264 F.2d 24, 25 (9th Cir. 1959) (it has never been the court’s function “to supervise laymen in the practice of law”); Local Rule 1-3 (“Persons appearing pro se are bound by these rules.”). More than 105 days have now passed since Plaintiff filed the Complaint, and he has neither filed a copy of proof of service with the Court nor otherwise communicated with the Court about his case. The docket also does not reflect that Plaintiff served the Complaint on any named defendant. CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 19-4990-GW (KS) Date: September 23, 2019 Title Karl Bohee v. Clinton Harrell et al

Accordingly, the Complaint is now subject to dismissal under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than October 7, 2019, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of his case pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 41-1. IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer gr