Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Stephanie Ann Chitwood, representing herself, sued Yuba County and other defendants in the Eastern District of California. The case is referred to a magistrate judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 6, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause directing her to explain within 14 days why the action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service. She was to respond by October 20, 2026, with either a motion to extend time or returns of service for any defendants already served.
On October 26, 2026, Chitwood moved for a 60-day extension. She stated that she had served all defendants by certified mail on September 30, 2026, but had concluded that service on a government official must be reissued to comply with the federal rules. She cited unexpected and severe medical issues. The court noted that she submitted no supporting documentation, no declaration, and no returns of service. She also asked for remote appearances at future hearings, access to electronic filing, and appointment of pro bono counsel. Meanwhile, defendant James Bishop had appeared pro se and moved to dismiss on October 7, 2026, without challenging service.
The court observed that M&T Bank is not a government official, nor is Thomas Smith, whom the complaint describes as a contractor who worked on her property, and that Bishop had already appeared. Yuba County was the only remaining named defendant that is a governmental body, but the court noted it is a local governmental entity rather than a government official.
The Court’s Holding
The order is a case-management ruling, not a decision on the merits. The court granted the extension motion in part and denied it in part. It found that Chitwood had not shown good cause for a 60-day extension, given the unsupported medical assertion and the fact that most defendants are not government officials. It nonetheless allowed additional time and ordered her to complete service and file returns of service for all defendants who have been served by December 8, 2026. The order dismisses no claim or party.
The court reset the hearing on Bishop's motion to dismiss to January 14, 2027 at 11:00 a.m., to be held by Zoom, which was the only hearing then set. Because Chitwood had not responded within the 14 days allowed by Local Rule 230, the court sua sponte extended her opposition deadline to November 18, 2026 and set Bishop's reply for December 4, 2026.
The court denied electronic filing access. Local Rule 133(b)(2) bars pro se litigants from e-filing without the assigned judge's permission, and she showed no good cause to depart from that default. It also denied appointed counsel. A civil litigant generally has no right to counsel, and appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) requires exceptional circumstances, assessed by the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability to articulate the claims given their complexity. Chitwood offered no argument on those factors, and the court stated that counsel being beneficial is not enough. Both denials are without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking more time to serve under Rule 4(m) should support the request with a declaration, documentation of claimed medical problems, and returns of service, because the court denied the full 60 days partly for lack of such support.
- The court granted a shorter extension to December 8, 2026 rather than dismissing the case, and directed that returns of service be filed for all defendants who have been served.
- Pro se litigants in the Eastern District of California may not use electronic filing without the assigned judge's permission under Local Rule 133(b)(2), and a bare request does not show good cause.
- Appointment of counsel in a civil case requires exceptional circumstances, and a plaintiff who does not address likelihood of success and the complexity of the legal issues will not meet that standard.
- The motion to dismiss remains pending, with opposition due November 18, 2026, reply due December 4, 2026, and a Zoom hearing on January 14, 2027.
Why It Matters
This is a routine, unreported magistrate judge order with no precedential weight. It shows how the court handles an early service dispute with a self-represented plaintiff: it enforces Rule 4(m) and the Local Rules but gives limited relief to keep the case moving and to give her a fair chance to oppose Bishop's motion.
Several matters remain open. The order does not decide Bishop's motion to dismiss, whether service on Yuba County and the other defendants is effective, or whether the order to show cause is discharged. Because the e-filing and counsel denials are without prejudice, Chitwood may renew either request with a stronger showing.