Coleman v. Pearson
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-04762
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coleman v. Pearson, Judge White ordered Wendell Coleman to explain why the case should not be dismissed and vacated the case-management conference.
Wendell Coleman, who was required to explain the failure to obtain and serve a summons; Christina Pearson and the other defendants, whose service had not been completed; and the scheduled case-management conference, which the court vacated.
What happened
In Coleman v. Pearson, Wendell Coleman filed a complaint and paid the filing fee, but did not submit a proposed summons for serving Christina Pearson and the other defendants.
The court explained that the summons and complaint must be served within the time allowed by the federal rules. Because Coleman was representing himself, the court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed and why he should receive more time to serve the defendants.
The court vacated the scheduled case-management conference and required Coleman to respond by October 16, 2020. Judge Jeffrey S. White warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Pearson · No. 4:20-cv-04762
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 24, 2020
Background
Wendell Coleman filed the complaint on July 14, 2020, and paid the filing fee. The case was scheduled for an initial case-management conference on October 16, 2020. When he filed the complaint, Coleman did not submit a proposed summons.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to obtain a summons for each defendant to be served and to serve the summons with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for completing service within the period allowed by Rule 4(m), or may request that a defendant waive service by following Rule 4(d). The order states that the Rule 4(m) deadline to complete service was October 13, 2020.
The court noted that Coleman was proceeding without a lawyer but was still required to follow the procedural rules governing other litigants.
Order
The court ordered Coleman to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failing to obtain and serve a summons. It also ordered him to explain why the court should grant an extension of the time to serve Christina Pearson and the other defendants. His response was due October 16, 2020.
The court vacated the case-management conference and stated that it would reschedule the conference if necessary after receiving and considering Coleman’s response. The court further stated that if Coleman failed to respond, it would dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Judge Jeffrey S. White also advised Coleman about the court’s handbook for litigants without lawyers and the availability of the Legal Help Center.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.