(PS) Douglas v. The Ezralow Co., LLC.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHERYL LYNN DOUGLAS, et al., No. 2:24-cv-0331-KJM-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE 14 THE EZRALOW COMPANY LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Cheryl Lynn Douglas and Andrew Grant Haymore proceed without counsel on a 18 complaint filed on January 29, 2024. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 19 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After payment of the filing fee, plaintiffs were issued 20 summons by the Clerk of Court to serve the defendants on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) On the 21 same date, the court issued an initial scheduling order informing plaintiffs that, pursuant to Rule 22 4, “Plaintiff[s] shall complete service of process on all defendants named in the complaint within 23 90 days from the date of this order.” (ECF No. 6 at 2.) The court cautioned plaintiffs that under 24 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “this case may be dismissed if service of 25 process is not accomplished within 90 days. (Id.) 26 On January 24, 2025, the court found plaintiffs had not properly served the defendants 27 under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and quashed service. (ECF No. 33 at 8.) Sua 28 1 sponte, the court granted an extension of time of 21 days from the date of that order for plaintiffs 2 to effectuate service of process on the defendants. (Id.) On February 20, 2025, and again on April 3 3, 2025, the court granted further extensions of time for service of process.1 (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) 4 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 5 plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. 6 But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 7 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 9 Despite the court granting plaintiffs multiple extensions of time for plaintiffs to serve the 10 defendants, the record does not indicate proper service of process. Self-represented plaintiffs are 11 given latitude in prosecuting their cases, given their unfamiliarity with the legal system and 12 federal rules. See, e.g., Eriksen v. Washington State Patrol, 2006 WL 994750, at *1 (E.D. Wash. 13 Apr. 7, 2006) (“Generally pro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by 14 counsel to correct defects in service of process and pleadings.”) (quoting Moore v. Agency for 15 Intern. Development, 994 F.2d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). However, pro se status is not sufficient to 16 show good cause for failure to serve. Townsel v. Contra Costa County, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th 17 Cir. 1987) (noting that ignorance of or confusion about service requirements does not constitute 18 “good cause” for failure to serve). Given plaintiffs’ failure to serve and lack of good cause, this 19 case should be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 20 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 21 litigants.”). 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26

27 1 The court also appointed counsel for plaintiffs for the limited purpose of representing plaintiffs at a settlement conference. (ECF No. 36.) Limited purpose counsel was released on July 3, 2025, 28 after plaintiffs failed to contact assigned counsel as they were ordered to do. (ECF No. 38.) 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 2 1. Plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed without prejudice; and 3 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 6 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” A reply to objections may be filed within seven (7) 9 || days thereafter. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 10 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 11 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 | Dated: July 10, 2025 / a □□ / a Ly a 13 CAROLYN K DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 |B dous2devOsstat 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28