1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 ROBERT ALAN ROGINSKY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01381-KJD-DJA

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 MALLORY TRIPLETT, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time (ECF #17) to serve the 13 complaint. Having read and considered the motion, it is granted. 14 I. Factual and Procedural Background 15 Plaintiff, Robert Alan Roginsky (“Roginsky”), appearing pro se, brings a Fourth 16 Amendment false arrest claim against Mallory Triplett, Brian Zana, and Does 2-5 (“Defendants”) 17 for Plaintiff’s arrest on October 31, 2014. (ECF # 1-1). On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis which the Court eventually granted on May 10, 2021. 19 (ECF #1/4/9). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and the Court dismissed all of 20 Plaintiff’s claims except for his Fourth Amendment false arrest claim against Defendants. 21 (ECF #7). On May 6, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to send the U.S. Marshal’s office the 22 required USM-285 forms with relevant information as to each Defendant on each form within 30 23 days. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then had 20 days after receiving copies of the USM-285 forms back from 24 the U.S. Marshal to inform the Court which Defendants were served and which were not. Id. On 25 May 25, 2022, over one year later, the Court sent Plaintiff a notice regarding intention to dismiss 26 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) because the Court received no proof of service as to Defendants 27 Zana and Triplett. (ECF #15). Plaintiff filed a motion for time extension, stating that he mailed 28 the USM-285 forms and asking for more time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4) to contact the U.S. Marshal’s office to see if anything has been done concerning these forms. (ECF #17 at 1). 2 Il. Legal Standard 3 “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must 4| dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The rule requires, however, that the court “extend the time 6 | for service for an appropriate period” when a plaintiff “shows good cause for the failure.” Id. 7 | However, courts may choose to grant time extensions “even in the absence of good cause” 8 | because courts “have broad discretion to extend time for service under Rule 4(m).” Efaw v. 9| Williams,

(9th Cir. 2007). 10 Ill. Analysis 11 Plaintiff alleges that he has experienced difficulties when attempting to mail court filings 12 | and service while in custody at Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). According to 13 | Plaintiff, he received the USM-285 forms, mailed them to the U.S. Marshal’s office, and then 14 | never received any correspondence back. (ECF #17 at 1). Plaintiff also alleges that he attempted 15 | to file an amended complaint and the CCDC failed to mail out the complaint, instead placing it 16 | onhis property to which he has no access. (ECF #16). Out of an abundance of caution, the Court 17 | will exercise its broad discretion and extend time for service under Rule 4(m) to provide Plaintiff 18 | reasonable time to cure his failure to serve summons and complaint to Defendants. 19 TV. Conclusion 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time 21) (ECF #17) is GRANTED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will effect service of the summons and 23 | complaint to Defendants within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so will result in Plaintiff's action 24 | being dismissed without prejudice. No further extensions will be granted. 25 Dated this 20th day of July, 2022. 26 hat 1 ‘Kent Dawson 28 United States District Judge

-2-