1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JACOB KOBER, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01011-CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS AND FED. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF R. CIV. P. 4(m) CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS,

15 et al., 5-Day Deadline

16 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiffs Jacob Kober, through successor in interest Sandra Janine Butler, and Sandra 19 Janine Butler individually (“Plaintiffs”), initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 20 August 13, 2025, against Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations 21 (“CDCR”), Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), Christian Pfeiffer, and Matthew Perez. (Doc. 1). 22 That same day, the Court entered an order setting a mandatory scheduling conference. (Doc. 3). 23 The Court’s order directed Plaintiffs to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and 24 “promptly file proofs of service.” (Doc. 3 at 1). The order further advised Plaintiffs that failure 25 to timely complete service “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of 26 unserved defendants.” Id. 27 To date, it has been more than 90 days since Plaintiffs filed their complaint and Plaintiffs 28 have not filed proof of service nor any report setting forth an explanation for the failure to serve 1 || Defendant Matthew Perez. 2 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 3 ||or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 4 || sanctions... within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 5 || its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 6 || dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “Ifa defendant is 8 || not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after 9 || notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 10 || that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4Gm). Absent a showing of good 11 || cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) requires dismissal of any unserved defendant. 12 Conclusion and Order 13 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days of entry of 14 || this order, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed — 15 ||including dismissal of Defendant Perez — for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve the summons and 16 || complaint in a timely manner under the Court’s orders and Rule 4(m). 17 Any failure by Plaintiffs to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation 18 || that Defendant Perez be dismissed. 19 |) IT IS SOORDERED. 20 Dated: _ December 4, 2025 | Ww VL D R~ 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28