(PC) Johnson v. Martinez et al

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LEONARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
H. MARTINEZ, Warden, Pleasant Valley
State Prison; MATTHEW CATE,
Secretary, CDCR; and S. LONIGRO, Chief
Medical Officer, Pleasant Valley State
Prison,
Defendants.
Case No. 1;25-cv-00850-HBK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE
This matter comes before the Court upon period review of the file. Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, filed a civil complaint on July 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff paid
the $405.00 filing fee (receipt no. 100005715). On August 14, 2025, the Clerk of Court issued
summons for Defendants. (Doc. No. 6). As of the date on this order, no return of service on the
summons has been docketed. (See generally docket).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve a defendant within 90
days of filing the complaint. The time may be extended for good cause shown. If a defendant is
not served within the requisite time period, after notice to plaintiff, the court must dismiss the
action without prejudice, or order that service be made within a certain time period. (Id.)
(emphasis added). Because more than 90 days have passed and it does not appear any defendant

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
2
has been served a copy of the complaint and summons, Plaintiff is directed to show good cause
why the defendants should not be dismissed under Rule 4 and/or this case dismissed for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Further, on September 4, 2025, the Court set this matter for a mandatory Initial
Scheduling Conference for December 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 8). The September 4, 2025 Order
required the parties to file a joint scheduling report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the
December 4, 2025 Conference. (Id. at 2:15-16). As of the date of this Order, the parties have
failed to file a joint scheduling report. Consequently, the Court will vacate the Initial Scheduling
Conference.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date on this Order, Plaintiff shall show good cause
why the defendants should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and/or
this case dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action.
2. Failure to respond to this order will result in the recommendation that this case be
dismissed.
3. The Court vacates the Initial Scheduling Conference set for December 4, 2025 at 11:30
A.M.
Dated: December 1, 2025
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE