Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 195

ORDER DENYING 178 MOTION FOR SERVICE ON SIX MORE DEFENDANTS; DENYING 180 MOTION TO REPORT SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CERTAIN DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/21/2014. (Show Cause Response due by 8/25/2014). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
D. ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR
SERVICE ON SIX MORE DEFENDANTS,
(2) DENYING MOTION TO REPORT
SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED,
AND (3) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CERTAIN
DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED
(ECF Nos. 178, 180)

18

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

19
20

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action under

22

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 24, 2008. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s Eighth

23
Amended Complaint and found that it stated a cognizable claim against Defendants
24
25
26
27
28

Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Edmonds, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez,
Johnson, O’Neal, Parsons, Raygoza, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Zakari, Bastianon,

1

Campos, Casio, Cisneros, and Coronado for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the

2

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 160.)

3
4

Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez,
Johnson, O’Neal, Parsons, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Casio, Cisneros, and

5
6

Coronado have appeared and answered Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 93.)

7

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s December 26, 2013 Motion for Service of 6 More

8

Defendants (ECF No. 178), seeking to serve Defendants Johnson, Campos, Zakari,

9

Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza; and his Motion to Report Service Has Not Been

10
11

Completed on 5 Defendants (ECF No. 180) which seeks service on Defendants
Campos, Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza.

12
13

II.

DEFENDANT JOHNSON
Defendant Johnson has already executed a waiver of service. (ECF No. 175.)

14
15

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to serve Defendant Johnson will be denied.

16

III.

17
18
19

DEFENDANT CAMPOS
Defendant Campos was served on February 4, 2014. (ECF No. 181.) Thereafter,

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) moved to dismiss
Defendant Campos due to insufficient service of process. (ECF No. 183.) Specifically,

20
21

CDCR alleged that the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison Corcoran

22

mistakenly accepted service on behalf of the wrong “F. Campos” and was not authorized

23

to accept service on behalf of the intended Defendant Campos in this case. The Court

24

denied CDCR’s motion without prejudice, and ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to

25

serve the correct “F. Campos.” (ECF No. 190.) The Marshals Service is currently

26

attempting to serve the correct Defendant Campos. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to

27
serve Defendant Campos will be denied.
28
2

1
2
3
4

IV.

DEFENDANT BASTIANON
Defendant Bastianon’s summons was returned unexecuted by the U.S. Marshals

Service on February 3, 2014, with a notation that even though the CDCR special
investigator provided the Marshal with Defendant Bastianon’s last known address, the

5
6
7

summons was returned to sender. (ECF No. 179.)
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon

8

order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is

10
11

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshals for service of the summons and complaint and [he]
should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where

12
13
14

the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.” Walker v. Sumner,
14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted), overruled

15

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

16

has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure

17

to effect service is automatically good cause. . . .” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (internal

18
19

quotations and citation omitted).
However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and

20
21

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

22

sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

23

At this time, the Marshals Service has exhausted the avenues available to it to

24

locate and serve Defendant Bastianon. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Accordingly,

25

Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendant Bastianon will be denied. Additionally, Plaintiff shall

26

show cause why Defendant Bastianon should not be dismissed because of the apparent

27
inability to obtain service on him. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to
28
3

1

this order or responds but fails to show cause, the Court will recommend that Defendant

2

Bastianon be dismissed from the action.

3

V.

4

DEFENDANTS ZAKARI, EDMONDS, AND RAYGOZA
Defendants Zakari’s summons was initially returned unexecuted by the U.S.

5
6

Marshals Service. (ECF No. 164, 177.) Although the Marshals Service was ordered to

7

serve Edmonds and Raygoza, no service documents were returned for either of these

8

defendants. (ECF No. 164, 177.) On June 17, 2014, the Court directed the Marshals

9

Service to re-attempt service on Defendants Zakari, Edmonds, and Raygoza by

10
11

contacting the Legal Affairs Division of CDCR and requesting the assistance of a special
investigator. (ECF No. 191.) Service was again returned unexecuted on June 25, 2014,

12
13
14

with the notation that the CDCR special investigator was unable to locate or identify the
defendants. (ECF No. 193, 194.)

15

At this time, the Marshals Service has exhausted the avenues available to it to

16

locate and serve Defendants Zakari, Edmonds, and Raygoza. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-

17

22. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to serve these Defendants will be denied. Additionally,

18
19

Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendants Zakari, Edmonds, and Raygoza should not be
dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or

20
21

responds but fails to show cause, the Court will recommend that Defendants Zakari,

22

Edmonds, and Raygoza be dismissed from the action.

23

VI.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

24

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of 6 More Defendants (ECF No. 178) is DENIED;

26

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Report Service Has Not Been Completed on 5 Defendants

27
(ECF No. 180) is DENIED;
28
4

1

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

2

show cause why Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza should not be

3

dismissed from this action; and

4
4. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order or fails to show cause, the Court will
5
6
7

recommend that Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza be dismissed
from this action.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

July 21, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5