Milo L. Oliver v. Metro Transit, et al.

Opinion

MILO L. OLIVER, Case No.: 25-cv-2932-AJB-VET

ORDER: Petitioner, (1) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS METRO TRANSIT, et al., (Doc. No. 4);

Respondents. (2) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED METRO TRANSIT AND ALPHA PROJECT;

(3) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT HUMANE SOCIETY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff Milo Oliver, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (“MTS”), the Alpha Project, and San Diego Humane Society. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on November 21, 2025. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP application because the application did not contain a trust fund account statement. See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (“[P]risoners must demonstrate that they are not able to pay the filing fee with an affidavit and submission of their prison trust account records.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)&(2)). On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second IFP application. (Doc. No. 4.) However, on December 14, 2025, Plaintiff opted to pay the $405 civil filing and administrative fee in full. (Doc. No. 5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. No. 4.) II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - DEFENDANTS MTS AND ALPHA PROJECT Once Plaintiff paid the civil filing fee, the summons was issued that same day. (Doc. No. 6.) It appears that Defendants MTS and Alpha Project were properly served on January 26, 2026.1 (Doc. Nos. 8; 9.) More than twenty-one (21) days have passed since MTS and Alpha Project were served, and neither have appeared in this action or otherwise responded to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants MTS and Alpha Project TO SHOW CAUSE why default should not be entered against them. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 55(a); see also Breuer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Sys. of Am., Inc., 687 F.2d 182, 185 (7th Cir. 1982) (Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) “refers to entry of default by the clerk, it is well-established that a default also may be entered by the court.”). Defendants MTS and Alpha Project must respond in writing by no later than June 2, 2026. III. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE – DEFENDANT HUMANE SOCIETY As it relates to Defendant Humane Society, it appears that Plaintiff has not properly served this defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides, in relevant part: “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

1 Plaintiff also filed a proof of service as to the County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 7.) However, the County appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). Civil Local Rule 4.1 provides that “[a]ll complaints must be served within ninety (90) days. Any extension will be granted } only upon good cause shown.” CivLR 4.1.a. Here, over 90 days have elapsed since Plaintiff filed his Complaint. Because Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service as to Defendant Humane Society within 90 days, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Humane Society should be dismissed from this action for failure to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) and the Local Rules. Plaintiff must file a response by no later than June 2, 2026. Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to adequately respond to this Order within the time provided will result in the Court dismissing the Humane Society from this action without prejudice. Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis is DENIED as MOOT (Doc. No. 4.); 2. Defendants MTS and Alpha Project must file a written response to this Order, /by no later than June 2, 2026, demonstrating good cause for why default should enter against them; 3. Plaintiff must file a written response to this Order, by no later than June 2, 2026, demonstrating good cause for why Defendant Human Society should not be dismissed from this action. Dated: May 4, 2026 © Hon. Anthony J. attaglia United States District Judge