PAUL CASSELL, District Judge
This is not the first time the court has dismissed this complaint for improper service. On April 2, 2003, this court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff had not served any defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's attorney, Jorge Galvez, prevailed upon this court to vacate this order, claiming that he had only recently taken the case and assumed that the Summons and Complaint had been properly served.
On June 23, 2003, this court reluctantly vacated the earlier order, giving Plaintiff thirty days to effectuate service on all defendants. The thirty days came and went, and the plaintiff never served the defendants.
On August 7 and 11, 2003, defendants filed separate motions to quash service and to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff never responded to these motions.
On September 9, 2003, this court entered an order for the plaintiffs to show cause within ten days why the motions should not be granted and the case dismissed. Plaintiff's never responded to the order to show cause.
Accordingly the defendants' motions to quash service and dismiss the complaint (29-1, 29-2, 30-1, 30-2) are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED, and the clerk is directed to close this case.