Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Toms et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SOLE NAMED DEFENDANTS, AND THE ACTION, 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 shall s how cause in writing, on or before July 26, 2017, why the Defendants should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff should provide any additional information he has about Toms, McClain, and the Unknown defendants so that they can be served with process. (See Order for details.) (mp)

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

CV 17-2639-FMO (AGR)

Title

Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Sergeant Toms, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 26, 2017

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 SOLE NAMED
DEFENDANTS, AND THE ACTION, SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS

On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint
alleging abuse by five Los Angeles County jail deputies. Plaintiff identifies only two, Sergeant
Toms and Deputy McClain; the other three are sued as Unknown Deputies 1, 2, and 3. On April
13, 2017, the Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve process on Toms and
McClain in their individual and official capacity.
The process receipts filed on June 16, 2017 indicate that neither Toms nor McClain could
be served because, “per LASD: need additional information to confirm correct employee.” (Dkt.
Nos. 10, 11, 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)).

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 17-2639-FMO (AGR)

Date

Title

June 26, 2017

Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Sergeant Toms, et al.

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.
Plaintiff may be able to obtain further identifying information about Toms, McClain, and
the Unknown defendants by propounding discovery, such as a subpoena issued – after Court
approval – to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, on or before July 26, 2017,
why the Defendants should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule
4(m). Plaintiff should provide any additional information he has about Toms, McClain, and the
Unknown defendants so that they can be served with process.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

mp

Page 2 of 2