Leonard Johnson v. H. Martinez, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison; Matthew...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEONARD JOHNSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-00850-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING SHOW CAUSE ORDER 13 v. (Doc. No. 9) H. MARTINEZ, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison; MATTHEW CATE, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Secretary, CDCR; and S. LONIGRO, Chief FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Medical Officer, Pleasant Valley State Prison, (Doc. No. 10) 17 Defendants.

19 On December 1, 2025, the undersigned directed Plaintiff, within fourteen days, to show cause why the defendants should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) and/or why this case should not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc. No. 9). On December 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply to the order to show cause. (Doc. No. 10). Therein, he states he has been unable to locate the defendants to effectuate proper service and requests a further 30-day extension of time.

24 (Doc. No. 10).

25 A plaintiff in a federal civil case may serve individual defendants within a judicial district of the United States by either: (1) following state law service requirements in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or (2) complying with any of the following federal requirements: (A) “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the | individual personally;” (B) “leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of | abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there;” or (C) “delivering a copy | of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Fed. R. | Civ. P. 4(e); see also, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30 (listing the requirements for service by | mail under California law). If, however, a defendant is not served within ninety days of filing the | complaint, 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

9 Rule 4(m) provides that a plaintiff's time to serve the summons and complaint shall be | extended if he shows “good cause” for his failure to complete service within 90 days of filing the | complaint. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court finds Plaintiff has | shown good cause and will exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff a further 30-day extension of | time to effectuate service upon defendants.

14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 1. The December 1, 2025 Show Cause Order (Doc. No. 9) is discharged.

16 2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED.

17 3. Plaintiff shall file proof of service on each defendant no later than February 9, 2026.

18 4. If Plaintiff fails to effectuate service on any of the defendants by February 9, 2026 and 19 fails to show good cause for a further extension of time the undersigned 20 recommending dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 4(m) without further warning.

23 Dated: _ January 8, 2026 law ZA. foareh Back 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE