1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WENDELL COLEMAN, Case No. 20-cv-04762-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING FINAL 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

10 CHRISTINA PEARSON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 14 Defendants. 11

12 13 The Court has recounted the procedural history of this case in multiple orders. (See, e.g., 14 Dkt. Nos. 5-6, 9, 12, 15.) On January 18, 2022, the Court issued a Final Order to Show Cause in 15 which it directed Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to obtain a summons upon filing the 16 Complaint, why he had not served the Defendants as of September 24, 2020, and why he should 17 be granted an extension of the time limits set forth in Rule 4(m) to effect service, such that the 18 Court should re-open this case.1 Plaintiff’s response to that Final Order to Show Cause was due 19 by February 4, 2022, and the Court stated that if it failed to receive a response by that date, the 20 case would remain closed. (Dkt. No. 15.) 21 On February 3, 2022, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff asking for an extension of 22 time in this matter and notifying the Court of a temporary change of address. That letter also 23 referred to two other cases pending in this District and stated that he needed to file a motion in 24 each case but could not make three copies of the motion. (Dkt. No. 16.) The Court has reviewed 25

26 1 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se but is expected to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. King v. Atiyeh,

(9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds Lacey 27 v. Maricopa County,

(9th Cir. 2012); see also Ghazali v. Moran,

, 54 ] the motion filed in Coleman v. Napa Superior Court, No. 21-cv-8970-HSG (Dkt. No. 7). 2 The Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 3 Cause. By April 1, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a response that shows cause why he failed to obtain a 4 |} summons upon filing the Complaint, why he had not served the Defendants as of September 24, 5 || 2020, and why he should be granted an extension of the time limits set forth in Rule 4(m) to effect 6 || service, such that the Court should re-open this case. The Court will not grant any further 7 || extensions. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the case will remain closed and the Court 8 || will not entertain any further filings from Plaintiff. 9 IT ISSO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 9, 2022 / } / Nite □ 1 \ UKs ; JEFFREY $. WHIT, 4 12 United fates Dis ct Judge 13 /

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28