Calderon v. City of San Jose
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-00289
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Calderon v. City of San Jose, Judge Demarchi granted Calderon’s request and retroactively extended the service deadline after all defendants were served.
Alejandro Calderon and the defendants in his civil-rights action, including the City of San Jose and the police officers named in the complaints.
What happened
In Calderon v. City of San Jose, Alejandro Calderon filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the City of San Jose and police officers. The court had set April 16, 2024, as the deadline to complete service and to report on service efforts.
Calderon filed an amended complaint on April 16 adding seven police officers, but he did not respond to the court’s order or request an extension until April 17. He served all defendants on April 17 and provided proof of service that day.
Judge Demarchi granted Calderon’s request and retroactively extended the deadline to serve the City of San Jose and Officer Rodriguez to April 17, 2024. The order addressed service only and did not decide the lawsuit’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. City of San Jose · No. 5:24-cv-00289
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
Alejandro Calderon filed this civil-rights action on January 17, 2024. His original complaint named the City of San Jose and police officer J. Rodriguez Martinez as defendants. The court later noted that the record did not show that the defendants had been served and stated that the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) was April 16, 2024. The court directed Calderon to file proof of service, a waiver of service, or a status report by that date.
On April 16, Calderon filed an amended complaint that was substantially identical to the original complaint but added seven police officers as defendants. He did not respond to the court’s April 10 order. On April 17, he requested an extension of time but did not explain why he had not requested an extension before the deadline or why he had not timely responded to the court’s order. Later that day, he filed proof showing that all defendants had been served on April 17.
Rule and Analysis
Rule 4(m) generally requires service within 90 days after a complaint is filed. If a defendant is not served within that period, the court must dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the service period. The court noted that an amended complaint does not restart the 90-day service period.
The court found it difficult to conclude that Calderon had shown good cause because he missed the service deadline without requesting an extension and failed to respond timely to an order that specifically alerted him to the relevant deadlines. But the court also explained that Rule 4(m) permits an extension even without good cause. Because all defendants had been served, the court exercised its discretion to grant the request and retroactively extend the deadline to serve the City of San Jose and Officer Rodriguez to April 17, 2024.
Disposition
The court granted Calderon’s request for an extension of the service deadline. The order did not rule on the merits of the civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.