Austin v. Riley

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 21-cv-09347-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: TIME FOR SERVICE v. — 9 — Re: Dkt. No. 17 10 KERRI RILEY, Defendant. — 11 — — 12 — 13 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter without representation by a lawyer. He filed his 14 complaint on December 2, 2021; he paid the required filing fee on January 1, 2022; and the Clerk 15 issued the summons on January 3, 2022. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 9, 11.) Plaintiff then filed a motion that the 16 Court construed as a motion to enlarge time for service of the summons and complaint upon 17 Defendant. (Dkt. No. 12.) The Court denied the motion because Plaintiff did not establish “good 18 cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for the failure to timely serve. (Dkt. No. 13.) 19 Plaintiff has now filed a second motion to enlarge the time for service. (Dkt. No. 17.) He 20 requests an extension “until after April 12th, 2022, [p]erhaps mid June,” “[b]ecause a host of 21 recent developments are commanding more attention in the short term . . . creating a need for more 22 runway for time, resources and fees associated with Service of Process.” (Id. at 2.) This request is 23 too vague to establish “good cause.” Plaintiff has not explained the particular circumstances or 24 reasons why an extension is appropriate, especially given that the deadline for service has not yet 25 passed. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038 , 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that Rule 4(m) 26 requires the court to grant an extension if the plaintiff shows good cause, and permits the court to 27 grant an extension in its discretion even if the plaintiff does not show good cause). 1 v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 4:21-cv-02637-HSG (filed Apr. 9, 2021, dismissed Feb. 9, 2022); 2 Austin v. United States Postal Service, No. 4:21-cv-03108-SBA (filed Apr. 27, 2021, dismissed 3 Dec. 3, 2021); Austin vy. Kemper Corporation (Insurance), No. 3:21-cv-03208-SI (filed Apr. 29, 4 2021, dismissed Dec. 15, 2021); Austin v. San Joaquin Superior Court, No. 4:21-cv-05225-JSW 5 (filed July 6, 2021); Austin v. State Bar, No. 4:21-cv-06794-JST (filed Aug. 31, 2021); Austin v. 6 ABC Legal, No. 3:21-cv-09076-SI (filed Nov. 22, 2021); Austin v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-093457 || MMC (filed Dec. 2, 2021); Austin v. One Legal LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00360-LB (filed Jan. 18, 2022). 8 Plaintiff filed Lyft the same day as this suit, and filed One Legal after this Court had ordered 9 Plaintiff to timely serve Defendant in this suit. (Dkt. No. 13.) 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. He shall serve the summons and complaint 11 on Defendant on or before March 2, 2022. 12 This Order disposes of Docket No. 17. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: February 23, 2022 5 CQUELINE SCOTT CORLE nited States Magistrate Judge — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —