Anthony Romandette v. Weetabix Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute where plaintiff’s “six-month hiatus” in prosecuting his case “was readily explainable by his transfer to a county facility, a facility apparently lacking the library”
• construing an earlier version of Rule 4 which 22 required plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to request 23 service by the Marshals
• “as an incarcerated pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, he was entitled to rely on service by the U.S. Marshals”
• internal 4 Defendants also argue that service was — or now would be — untimely. Rule 4(m
• “It would not be in the 4 interest of justice to penalize a plaintiff for his reliance on the actions of the U.S. Marshal 5 Service.”
• “Rule 4 . . . is to be construed liberally to further the purpose of finding personal jurisdiction in cases in which the party has received actual notice.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).