Simmons v. Hedgpeth

Filing 72

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Sauceda Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/19/14: Thirty-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GRISSOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTITFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SAUCEDA
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO
RULE 4(M)

Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

This action is proceeding against Defendants Grissom, Keiley, St. Lucia, Ellstrom, Rients,

20

Sauceda, Akanno, Rufino and Does 1-10 for deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s serious medical

21

condition, against Defendants Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno and Rufino for deliberate indifferent

22

arising from the deprivation of Plaintiff’s pain medication, and against Defendants Rients, Akanno,

23

Sauceda, Rufino and Ellstrom for a violation of the First Amendment. The United States Marshal has

24

not been able to locate and serve Defendant Sauceda.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

2

[if] a defendant is not served within 120 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.

3
4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
6
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States Marshal, upon
7
order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P.
8

4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S.

9
Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and [he] should not be penalized by having his
10
action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to
11
12
13
14

perform his duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and
citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as
the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to
effect service is automatically good cause….” Id. at 1422 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

15
However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information
16

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

17
defendants is appropriate. Id. at 1421-1422.
18
Here, the Marshal forwarded the service packet to a special investigator at the California
19
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The special investigator was unable to locate

20
Defendant Sauceda. Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant
21
Sauceda should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order
22
or responds but fails to show cause, Defendant Sauceda shall be dismissed from this action.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
2

1

Based on the foregoing,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

why Defendant Sauceda should not be dismissed from this action; and

4
5

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause

2.

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the
dismissal of Defendant Sauceda from this action.

6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 19, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3