1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Joseph C. Anoruo, 2:23-cv-01479-JAD-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING MOTION 5 vs. 6 Denis McDonough, 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is pro se plaintiff Joseph C. Anoruo’s Motion to Extend Time 9 (“Motion”) (ECF No. 15). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. BACKGROUND 12 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 18, 2023. ECF No. 1. On March 11, 2024, the Court 13 ordered plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed In Forma Pauperis by April 14 10, 2024. ECF No. 4. The Court warned plaintiff that failing to comply may result in a recommendation 15 that his case be dismissed or closed. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply. Subsequently, the Court issued a 16 Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 5. The District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation 17 in its entirety and entered judgment in favor of defendant. ECF Nos. 6, 7. On June 11, 2024, plaintiff 18 paid the filing fee and filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order on the Report and Recommendation 19 (“Motion to Set Aside”). ECF Nos. 9, 10. The District Judge granted the Motion to Set Aside and 20 reopened the case. ECF No. 11. The District Judge also ordered plaintiff to complete service in 21 compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Plaintiff now seeks an extension of 22 time to complete service due to a “competing writ of certiori” in the United States Supreme Court1. 23 24

25 1 Joseph Anoruo, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans , Affairs, No. 24-508 (23A955), https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-508.html 1 II. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 2 A. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant(s) must be served 4 within 90-days after the complaint is filed. Failure to do so is cause for dismissal without prejudice. Fed. 5 R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the 6 time for service for an appropriate period.” Id. Courts have broad discretion to extend time for service 7 under Rule 4(m). Efaw v. Williams, 473 D.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court has stated 8 that the 90-day time period for service contained in Rule 4(m) “operates not as an outer limit subject to 9 reduction, but as an irreducible allowance.” Henderson v. United States,

,

1638,

(1996). “On its face, Rule 4(m) does not tie the hands of the district court after 11 the… [90]—day period has expired. Rather, Rule 4(m) explicitly permits a district court to grant an 12 extension of time to serve the complaint after that… [90]—day period.” Mann v. American Airlines, 324

(9th Cir. 2003). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4(m) state that the rule 14 “explicitly provides that the court shall allow additional time if there is good cause for the plaintiff's 15 failure to effect service in the prescribed… [90] days, and authorizes the court to relieve a plaintiff of the 16 consequences of an application of [Rule 4(m)] even if there is no good cause shown.” See Fed. R. Civ.

(m), Advisory Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments; see also Williams v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 18

, at * 2 (9th Cir. 2024) (“Under Rule 4(m) a district court…may 19 discretionarily extend time for service upon a showing of excusable neglect.”) (citing Lemoge v. United 20 States,

(9th Cir. 2009)). 21 B. ANALYSIS 22 The Court notes that no defendants have appeared because plaintiff seeks an extension of time to 23 complete service. Plaintiff failed to provide a memorandum of points and authorities. LR 7-2(a) (“The 24 motion must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities.”). “The failure of a moving party 25 to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” 1 || LR 7-2(d). However, the Court notes plaintiff references the “good cause” standard. Therefore, the 2 || Court will construe plaintiff to bring his motion under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 || Procedure. See Erickson v. Pardus,

,

,

(2007) (“A 4 || document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed[.]’”). Plaintiff is cautioned that any future motions 5 || should clearly reference the relevant points and authorities in support of his motion. 6 Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to complete service due to a “competing writ of certiori” in 7 United States Supreme Court. ECF No. 15. The Court finds that good cause exists to grant the 8 || extension of time. Plaintiff's pending writ may have some bearing on the claims before this Court. Thus, 9 || out of the interest of justice and judicial economy, the Court will grant the extension. 10 C. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF 11 The Court understands that plaintiff is pro se and advises plaintiff that there are no ‘informal’ 12 || motions under the Court’s local rules. Plaintiff is kindly directed to please not use ‘informal’ in the 13 || caption of future filings. 14 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 IT IS ORDERED that: 17 1. The Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. 18 2. Plaintiff must serve the summons and the complaint by no later than January 8, 2025. 19 DATED this 30" day of December 2024. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. i tem f wv 21 Af JX oo ff é Fy __ 33 & Fon. MaxitAiliano/D. Couvillier III United Stales Magistrate Judge 24 25

1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25