Lacy v. Tyson et al

Filing 74

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE,signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 09/07/2011. (30-day deadline for Show Cause Response) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

GARY ANDRE LACY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
H. TYSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00381-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT R. REYNA SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND

16

Gary Andre Lacy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, filed on

18

April 28, 2009, against defendants Correctional Officers R. Reyna, T. Reyna, and N. Correa;

19

Correctional Sergeants J. Peacock, M. Bremnar, and M. Brookwalter; Captain H. Tyson; Medical

20

Technician Assistant (MTA) Aspetitia; and Doctor I. Patel; on Plaintiff's claims for excessive force,

21

retaliation, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.1

22

On October 19, 2009 and January 21, 2011, the Court issued orders directing the United States

23

Marshal (“Marshal”) to serve process upon defendants in this action. (Docs. 23, 55.) On March 31,

24

2011, the Marshal returned the USM-285 Form for defendant R. Reyna with a notation that the facility

25

reported that defendant R. Reyna is deceased. (Doc. 67.) Plaintiff was informed more than 90 days ago

26
1

27

Defendants Dill and Heanacho were dismissed by the Court on August 27, 2009. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff's claims for
equal protection, and for retaliation against defendant Dill, were also dismissed by the Court, for failure to state a claim. Id.

28

1

1

of the Marshal’s notice that defendant R. Reyna is deceased. (Doc. 68.) Plaintiff has not moved to

2

substitute defendant R. Reyna’s estate as a party.2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

3
Pursuant to Rule 4(m),
4
5
6
7
8
9

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days
after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after
notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or
direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows
good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate
period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

10

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro se

11

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U. S. Marshal for service of the summons

12

and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service

13

where the U. S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d

14

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated

15

on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the

16

information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically

17

good cause . . . .’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th

18

Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

19

information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the

20

unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

21

In this instance, Plaintiff has not moved to substitute defendant R. Reyna’s estate as a defendant.

22

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why

23
2

24
25
26
27
28

Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides: “If a party dies and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party
or by the successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of hearing, shall be served on the
parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons,
and may be served in any judicial district. Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death
is suggested upon the record by service of statement of the fact of the death as provided for herein for the service of the
motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

2

1

defendant R. Reyna should not be dismissed, without prejudice, on the ground that the Marshal was

2

unable to serve defendant R. Reyna based on the information provided by Plaintiff. Failure to do so will

3

result in the dismissal of defendant R. Reyna as a defendant in this action.

4

III.

CONCLUSION

5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

7
8

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause
why defendant R. Reyna should not be dismissed from this action; and

2.

9

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in a
recommendation that defendant R. Reyna be dismissed from this action.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 7, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3