(PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept. 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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHAD MICHAEL CREEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY TITHERINGTON,
Defendant.
No. 2:24-cv-01533-KJM-SCR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant
to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The claims against Sacramento County
Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Jim Cooper have been dismissed. See ECF No. 24. On
December 5, 2025, the Court directed service of the Fourth Amended Complaint as to only
Deputy Titherington. The Order directing service provided, in relevant part, as follows: “Plaintiff
is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order is filed, all
information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall promptly file a
statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal.”
ECF No. 40 at 6 (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff did not file a statement with the Court stating that the required documents had
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

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
been submitted to the United States Marshal. No return or proof of service on Titherington has
been filed on the docket. Instead, Plaintiff has requested entry of default (ECF No. 44) and filed a
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45). The request for entry of default claims that
Titherington was “personally served,” but does not say when or who effected service. ECF No.
44 at 5. In fact, the filing contains blanks such as: “[INSERT EXACT DATE MARSHALS
SERVED HIM]” and [INSERT DATE 21 DAYS AFTER SERVICE].” Id. It appears Plaintiff
filed an incomplete and premature request for entry of default that does not demonstrate that
Titherington was served.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is also premature and improper. The Court will
not entertain a motion for summary judgment as to Titherington when there is no proof of service,
no answer on file by Titherington, and no discovery has taken place. The motion for summary
judgment claims that the United States Marshal has served Titherington. ECF No. 45 at 5.
However, it does not state when this service occurred, and there is no proof of service on record.
Additionally, if Titherington has been served and is in default, as Plaintiff’s filings contend, then
the motion for summary judgment is unnecessary. Plaintiff filed a prior motion for summary
judgment that was stricken as “procedurally improper and premature” (ECF No. 39), and Judge
Mueller struck his Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff has also been cautioned
that “future noncompliance with orders of the Court may result in appropriate sanctions, up to and
including dismissal of the action.” ECF No. 43 at 2. The instant motion also does not comply
with Local Rule 260(a) as it does not include a statement of undisputed facts, and was not
properly noticed for hearing in accord with Local Rule 230.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within 14 days, why he did not comply with
the Court’s directive that he file within 15 days of December 5, 2025, a statement
indicating that he had provided service documents to the U.S. Marshal. See ECF No.
40 at 6. If Plaintiff claims he provided the required service documents to the Marshal,
he shall indicate the date he did so.
2. 	As Plaintiff claims service on Titherington has been completed, Plaintiff’s response
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

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
3
shall also include executed returns/proof of service.
3. 	Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) is STRICKEN as procedurally
improper and for noncompliance with the Local Rules.
4. 	If Plaintiff fails to timely respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case for
failure to comply with orders of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 5, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01533-TLN-SCR Document 46 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3