(PC) Thomas v. Davey et al, No. 1:2019cv00333 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER VACATING 21 Findings and Recommendations Issued on October 1, 2019; SECOND ORDER Directing Service by United States Marshal on Defendant Mays, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/16/19. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL THOMAS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. DAVID DAVEY, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00333-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 1, 2019 SECOND ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL ON DEFENDANT MAYS [ECF Nos. 17, 18, 21, 23] Plaintiff Michael Thomas is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On July 16, 2019, the Court found that service of the complaint was appropriate as to 21 Defendants Licensed Vocational Nurse Thomas, Doctor Ulit, Doctor Mays, Doctor Doe No. 1, and 22 CMO Doe No. 2 for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and service was 23 ordered. 24 On August 13, 2019, pursuant to the E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the 25 Eastern District of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation returned a 26 notice of intent to not waive personal service on Defendant Mays because he was no longer at 27 Corcoran State Prison and there was no address of record. Therefore, service was forwarded to the 28 United States Marshal. 1 1 On August 14, 2019, the United States Marshal (USM) returned the USM-285 form as 2 unexecuted as to Defendant Mays with a notation that the individual could not be located. (ECF No. 3 17.) On August 21, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why Defendant Mays should not 4 5 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s August 21, 2019 order to show cause, and therefore 6 7 Defendant Mays (Nurse Practitioner) must be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. 8 Therefore, on October 1, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 9 that Defendant Dr. Mays be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4. The Findings and 10 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within 11 fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on October 15, 2019. (ECF No. 23.) In his objections, Plaintiff submits that he was unaware of the need to file a response to the 12 13 order to show cause given that the Court set this case for settlement conference on October 9, 2019, 14 and Plaintiff attaches a copy of his response to the order to show cause along with additional 15 information to assist the USM in effectuating service on Defendant Mays. (ECF No. 23.) The Court 16 will forward this information to the USM who shall contact the Litigation Coordinator at California 17 State Prison-Corcoran to obtain any forwarding address in his/her possession, or which may be 18 obtainable through CDCR’s personnel records, to be maintained confidentially by the USM. 19 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 1, 2019, are VACATED; 21 2. The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 23) to the USM to assist in service on Defendant May; and 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 3. 1 Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the USM shall attempt to re-serve 2 Defendant May as directed above, and return a copy of the USM-285 (which shall not 3 include any confidential information). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 October 16, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.