Coleman v. Pearson
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-04762
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Coleman v. Pearson, Judge White ordered Wendell Coleman to explain his failure to serve defendants before considering whether to reopen the dismissed case.
Wendell Coleman, who was proceeding without a lawyer, must respond to the show-cause order; the defendants are affected because the court has not reopened the dismissed case or authorized service at this time.
What happened
Coleman v. Pearson concerns Wendell Coleman's failure to obtain and serve summonses after filing his complaint. Coleman filed the case without a lawyer and did not submit a proposed summons.
The court previously ordered Coleman to explain the failure and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not respond. After receiving no response, the court dismissed the case without prejudice on October 27, 2020. Coleman later asked the court to reopen the case, explaining that his arrest and a two-week quarantine prevented him from communicating with the court.
The court did not reopen the case at this time. Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered Coleman to show cause by October 12, 2021, explaining why he failed to obtain and serve summonses and why he should receive more time for service. The clerk was also ordered to send Coleman copies of the earlier show-cause and dismissal orders.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Pearson · No. 4:20-cv-04762
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 22, 2021
Background
Wendell Coleman filed the complaint on July 14, 2020, paid the filing fee, and proceeded without a lawyer. When he filed the complaint, he did not submit a proposed summons. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, a plaintiff must obtain a summons for each defendant and serve the summons and complaint within the time allowed by the rule.
The court calculated the service deadline as October 13, 2020, while noting that the ninetieth day from filing was October 12, 2020, a federal holiday. On September 24, 2020, the court vacated the initial case-management conference and ordered Coleman to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to obtain and serve a summons. The court also asked why it should extend the service deadline. Coleman did not respond by the October 16, 2020 deadline, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice on October 27, 2020.
Request to Reopen
On June 17, 2021, Coleman asked for an update and requested that the court reopen the matter. He stated that he had been arrested on October 7, 2020, which led to a two-week quarantine and prevented him from communicating with the court. The court found that this explanation addressed why he did not respond but did not provide the information requested in the earlier show-cause order.
The court issued another order on August 18, 2021, giving Coleman an opportunity to respond before it considered his request to reopen the matter. That order was returned, apparently because Coleman's California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation number was omitted.
Order
The court re-served the earlier show-cause order and ordered Coleman to show cause by October 12, 2021. His response must explain why he failed to obtain a summons when he filed the complaint, why he had not served the defendants as of September 24, 2020, and why the court should extend the time for service under Rule 4(m). The clerk was ordered to send Coleman copies of the original show-cause order and the dismissal order.
The order did not reopen the case or impose a new dismissal. Judge Jeffrey S. White issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.