Martinez v. City of Carlsbad

D. New Mexico

Martinez v. City of Carlsbad

DecidedMarch 8, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01169

StatusUnknown

This text of Martinez v. City of Carlsbad (Martinez v. City of Carlsbad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. City of Carlsbad, (D.N.M. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO SABINO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 20-cv-1169 SMV/KRS CITY OF CARLSBAD, LYNN PICKENS, and ALBERT MOISA, Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants on November 9, 2020. [Doc. 1] at 1. Plaintiff had 90 days from filing the Complaint, or until February 8, 2021, to effect service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). There is no indication on the record that service of process has been effected with respect to the Defendants. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff show good cause why his claims against Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the service provision of Rule 4(m). See Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995); Palzer v. Cox Okla. Telecom, LLC, 671 F. App’x 1026, 1028 (10th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff must file his response no later than March 29, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. LDL STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO SABINO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 20-cv-1169 SMV/KRS CITY OF CARLSBAD, LYNN PICKENS, and ALBERT MOISA, Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants on November 9, 2020. [Doc. 1] at 1. Plaintiff had 90 days from filing the Complaint, or until February 8, 2021, to effect service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). There is no indication on the record that service of process has been effected with respect to the Defendants. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff show good cause why his claims against Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the service provision of Rule 4(m). See Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995); Palzer v. Cox Okla. Telecom, LLC, 671 F. App’x 1026, 1028 (10th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff must file his response no later than March 29, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. LDL STEPHAN M. VIDMAR United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martinez v. City of Carlsbad, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-city-of-carlsbad-nmd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack