Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lutricia Milton, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against Stanislaus County and other defendants in the Eastern District of California on July 20, 2026. Summons issued on August 6, 2026. The caption lists three plaintiffs, but the court observed in a footnote that the complaint is signed only by Milton. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
On October 27, 2026, the magistrate judge found that more than 90 days had passed since filing. No return or proof of service was on file, no defendant had appeared, and Milton had not moved for more time. The court calculated that the 90-day period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) expired on October 19, 2026. It cited Rule 4(l), which requires proof of service to be made to the court. It also quoted Rule 4(m), under which a court acting on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff must either dismiss without prejudice against an unserved defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. If the plaintiff shows good cause, the court must extend the time for an appropriate period.
The Court’s Holding
The order is an order to show cause. It is not a dismissal, and the court made no finding about whether good cause exists. The court ordered Milton to explain in writing, within 14 days of the order, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service. She may respond in one of two ways. She may file a motion to extend the time for service that explains why service has not been completed and demonstrates good cause. Or she may file a return or proof of service for every defendant who has been served.
The court warned that if Milton does not respond, it will recommend dismissal of the action. That is a stated intention to make a recommendation, presumably to the assigned district judge. It is not itself a dismissal, and the order does not say whether any dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
In a footnote, the court noted that a pro se plaintiff cannot represent others, citing Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). The order does not strike, dismiss or otherwise rule on the status of the other captioned plaintiffs, and its directives are addressed to a single 'Plaintiff'.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 4(m) gives a plaintiff 90 days from the filing of the complaint to serve each defendant, and the court may act on its own after notice to the plaintiff when proof of service is missing.
- A plaintiff can answer a show-cause order on service either by filing proof of service for the defendants already served or by moving for more time and showing good cause.
- Under the quoted text of Rule 4(m), a showing of good cause makes an extension of time mandatory. Without such a showing, the court may dismiss without prejudice as to the unserved defendant or order service within a set time.
- A non-lawyer who signs a complaint cannot appear for other plaintiffs named in the caption, and the court flagged that concern without resolving it.
- The order decides nothing about the merits. If Milton does not respond, the stated consequence is a recommendation of dismissal, not an automatic dismissal.
Why It Matters
This is a routine case-management order, but it shows how quickly a pro se case can be put at risk when service is neglected. Here the order issued eight days after the Rule 4(m) period expired, and the plaintiff received a short window to cure the problem or explain it. The two permitted responses show what the court needs to see, which is either proof that defendants were served or a concrete, good-cause explanation for why they were not.
Several questions remain open. These include whether any defendant has been served, whether Milton will show good cause, and whether the court will recommend dismissal or extend the time. The footnote also leaves open how the court will treat the other captioned plaintiffs if they do not sign the complaint or obtain counsel. The order is an unpublished trial-court procedural ruling with no precedential weight. It applies existing rules and a Ninth Circuit decision and does not announce new law.