Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Noreen Van Schil, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00220-SRB-ECV Document 21 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Pena, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04-0220-PHX-SRB (ECV) ORDER

On March 16, 2006, Magistrate Judge Voss issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed in light of his failure to serve any defendants within the time frame set forth in Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause. Doc. #20. The response, however, says nothing about Plaintiff's failure to effect service on any of the defendants in this action. Plaintiff simply repeats some of the allegations from his amended complaint. The screening order filed on July 26, 2004, explained that service of process must be completed within 120 days of the date his amended complaint was filed. More than one and a half years have passed and still no defendant has been served. Plaintiff's response offers no explanation for his failure to comply with the Court's order regarding service. Plaintiff having failed to show cause, the Court will order that this action be dismissed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: That Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause fails to demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed in light of his failure to effect service of process on any defendants; That this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00220-SRB-ECV Document 21 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 2