Raiser v. San Diego County
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Aaron Raiser v. County of San Diego (2023-02-08) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Aaron Raiser moved for an extension of time to serve a Doe defendant, citing his inability to check mail due to homelessness and other circumstances. The court granted the motion, finding good cause, and ordered service by January 1, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's request for an extension to serve summons“Consequently, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff must serve the Defendant Deputy, if he or she can be identified, on or before January 1, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by the Ninth Circuit for extensions under Rule 4(m). The plaintiff provided specific factual reasons (homelessness, loss of laptop, trial attendance) explaining why he could not check his mail to receive the defendant's response, which constitutes a reasonable basis for good cause. The deadline set is reasonable. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent for the 'good cause' standard. The factual findings are sufficient to support the conclusion of good cause. There are no significant gaps or legal errors.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SERVE SUMMONS. 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ET AL., 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 38, 39. 16 17 On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff Aaron Raiser filed an ex parte request with the 18 Court to extend the time to serve a summons on a Deputy Officer currently named as a 19 Doe Defendant. ECF No. 38. On December 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended motion 20 that was substantially the same. ECF No. 39. 21 “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court— 22 on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without 23 prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” 24 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. (“FRCP”) 4(m). However, a Court must grant plaintiff an extension to 25 serve the defendant upon a finding of “good cause.” Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 26 976 (9th Cir. 2013). 27 Here, after Plaintiff’s protest that the County had not identified the Doe Deputy, 28 the Magistrate Judge ordered that Defendant County of San Diego “attempt to locate 1 ||information responsive to” Plaintiffs request and provide that information, or a sworn 2 || declaration stating none was found, by November 22, 2019. ECF No. 3 at 2—3. Plaintiff 3 || now asserts that he has been unable to check his mail to receive Defendant County’s 4 ||response to the Magistrate’s order since that date for a number of reasons, including 5 || Plaintiff's indigence, homelessness, loss of his laptop, and attendance at a two-week trial 6 Los Angeles. ECF No. 3-10. Plaintiff asks the Court for two more weeks to serve 7 ||the Deputy so he may check his mail and comply with FRCP 4. ECF No. 39-1 at 1. 8 Based upon these facts, the Court finds good cause to permit Plaintiff additional 9 || time for service. Consequently, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff must 10 serve the Defendant Deputy, if he or she can be identified, on or before January 1, 2020. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 16, 2019 <= 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28