Dodds v. Lascano et al
Filing
19
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within Thirty Days why Defendant B. Williams Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Provide Information Sufficient to Effect Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/29/2010. Show Cause Response due by 5/3/2010.(Verduzco, M)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAYMAR DODDS, 10 11 v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00656-AWI DLB PC ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY DEFENDANT B. WILLIAMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT SERVICE (Doc. 16) 14 / 15 16 Plaintiff Jaymar Dodds ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 E. LASCANO, et al., 13 Defendants.
17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 18 Plaintiff's complaint, filed April 13, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On November 13, 2009, the Court issued an 19 order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on three defendants. (Doc. 20 14.) The Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendant B. Williams and on February 1, 2010 21 the Marshal returned the USM-285 form to the Court. (Doc. 16.) 22 23 24 25 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 27 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the
28 Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). "`[A]n incarcerated pro 1
1 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 2 summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure 3 to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.'" Walker 4 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th 5 Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). "So long as the 6 prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal's failure to 7 effect service is `automatically good cause . . . .'" Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United 8 States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the 9 Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, 10 the Court's sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 142111 22. 12 In this instance, the address provided by Plaintiff for Defendant B. Williams is no longer
13 accurate, as Defendant B. Williams is no longer employed at the facility, Kern Valley State Prison. 14 (Doc. 24.) Additionally, there are many B. Williams employed by CDCR. If Plaintiff is unable to 15 provide the Marshal with a current address at which Defendant B. Williams can be located, the 16 defendant shall be dismissed from the action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court 17 will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why Defendant B. Williams should not be 18 dismissed from the action at this time. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 2. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendants B. Williams should not be dismissed from this action; and The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in a recommendation that Defendant B. Williams be dismissed from this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a
March 29, 2010
/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
