Coleman v. Adams, et al.

Filing 90

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Deering Should Not be Dismissed From This Action re 27 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/23/12. Response From Plaintiff Due in Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

SAAHDI COLEMAN,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT DEERING SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

13

(Doc. 27)

Defendants.

RESPONSE FROM PLAINTIFF DUE IN
THIRTY DAYS

14
15

/

16
Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
17
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable
18
claims against Defendants Adams, Divine, Martinez, Close, Suryadevara, Kyle, Nguyen, Deering,
19

Quezada, Smith, and Vierra for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Doc. 18; Doc. 22.1

20
On June 16, 2009, the Court forwarded documents to Plaintiff with instructions to complete
21
and return them to the Court for service of process on the Defendants. Doc. 21. After Plaintiff
22
returned the completed documents, on June 30, 2009, the Court ordered the United States Marshal
23
to initiate service of process upon Defendants. Docs. 24. On August 24, 2009, summons was
24
returned unexecuted as to Defendant Deering with a notation that Defendant Deering had died. Doc.
25
27.
26
Thus, Defendant Deering was not successfully served and has not appeared in this action.
27
28

1

There is no indication on the docket that service was ever attempted on Defendants Close and Quezada.

1

1

Therefore, Plaintiff shall be ordered to show cause why Defendant Deering should not be dismissed.

2

Within thirty days, Plaintiff shall file a written response with the Court explaining why Defendant

3

Deering should not be dismissed from this action for failure to successfully complete service of

4

process. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a non-opposition to the dismissal of Defendant Deering.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written

7

response showing cause why Defendant Deering should not be dismissed from this

8

action for failure to successfully complete service of process;

9

2.

10

In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a written non-opposition to the dismissal of
Defendant Deering; and

11

3.

12

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:
0jh02o

August 23, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2