Malberg v. Garcia-Sen

Background

Martin Malberg filed the action, paid the filing fee, and later filed an amended complaint that purported to add a defendant. He represents himself. The court had set an initial case-management conference for June 6, 2023.

On May 3, 2023, the court reminded Malberg about the deadline for serving the defendants, presenting summons forms to the Clerk’s Office, and keeping his contact information current. The court ordered him to file by May 30 one of three things: proof that service had been completed, proof that the defendants had waived service, or a report about his efforts to complete service. The order warned that the court would recommend dismissal if he failed to respond or obtain an extension for good cause.

Court’s concerns

The docket did not show that any defendant had been served. Malberg also did not file the required service-status report by the May 30 deadline. No one appeared at the June 6 case-management conference, including Malberg and the defendants, either by video or in person. The court further noted that mail sent to Malberg’s address of record had been returned as undeliverable, although the court also sent notices to a Nevada post-office box and an email address listed in his filings.

Order

The court directed Malberg to file a written response by June 27, 2023, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The court stated that Malberg is responsible for prosecuting the action, meeting court-ordered deadlines, and keeping the court informed of current contact information. The order itself directed Malberg to show cause; it did not dismiss the action. The Clerk was ordered to mail the order to the listed addresses and send it to the email address identified in Malberg’s filings.