Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Animal Welfare
Court Grants Plaintiffs' Request for Extension of Time
to Serve Process on a Defendant
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Clem v. Riebe, No. CIV S-08-0013 FCD EFB PS, 2008 WL 5478572 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2008), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to serve process and complaint on a defendant, despite their failure to show good cause for their delay, because the plaintiffs were proceeding pro se and had requested only a 60-day extension.
Background
The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the county and certain county officials alleging civil rights violations, denial of due process based on the alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence, and malicious prosecution on charges of animal cruelty, and also sought the return of their horses that had been seized. Id. at *1. Almost a year later, however, they had not yet served process of the summons and their complaint on the defendants. Id. The court had previously issued two orders to show cause of why they had failed to do so, and in response the plaintiffs had asked the court to wait until the anticipated dismissal of related state criminal actions against them. Id. In their most recent response, the plaintiffs had stated that a 60-day continuance would be sufficient to allow the resolution of the pending criminal actions and to allow them to obtain counsel. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed, but if the plaintiff shows good cause for failure to do so, then the court must extend the time for service. Id. If good cause is not shown, the court has discretion to either dismiss the suit or to give the plaintiff more time. Id. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to show good cause for the delay and noted that it was "not simply a repository for preserving plaintiffs' claims without providing timely notice to defendants," but given the plaintiffs' pro se status and their finite request for extension of time, the court gave them the benefit of the doubt and granted their request. Id. at *2.
The case was decided on December 31, 2008.