Adrian De Shawn Wilson v. Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department et al

Filing 38

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS CRUZ AND SANDERVOL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in wr iting, on or before November 14, 2016, why Defendants Sandervol and Cruz should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff should provide any additional information he has about Sandervol and Cruz so that they can be identified and served with process. (See Order for details.) (mp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-4488-BRO (AGR)

Title

Adrian De Shawn Wilson v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 11, 2016

Alicia G. Rosenberg, United States Magistrate Judge

Marine Pogosyan

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

not present

None

Proceedings:

In Chambers: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS
CRUZ AND SANDERVOL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
complaint. The court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve process on defendants.
The process receipts filed on August 23, 2016 indicate that two defendants could not be
served. The process receipts for Sandervol indicate there is no deputy by that name. (Dkt. Nos.
18-19.) The process receipts for Cruz indicate he retired with no forwarding information. (Dkt.
Nos. 12-13.)
“If a defendant is not served within 90 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
An “incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the
U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint” after “having provided the necessary
information to help effectuate service” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 4. Puett v. Blandford,
912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir.1990); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th
Cir.1994), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)).
When service cannot be accomplished due to the pro se plaintiff's failure to provide
sufficient information to identify or locate the defendant, and the plaintiff fails to remedy the
situation after being put on notice, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Id. at 1421-22.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-4488-BRO (AGR)

Date

October 11, 2016

Title

Adrian De Shawn Wilson v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

Plaintiff may be able to obtain further information by propounding discovery, such as
interrogatories and/or a request for documents to an already-served official-capacity defendant to
obtain further information needed to identify or locate the appropriate deputies. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33, 34.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing, on or before November 14, 2016,
why Defendants Sandervol and Cruz should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff should provide any additional information he has about
Sandervol and Cruz so that they can be identified and served with process.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

mp

Page 2 of 2