Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 232

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza for Insufficient Information to Effect Service of Process; Fourteen (14) Day Objection Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/27/2015. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 5/15/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15

D. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS DEFENDANTS ZAKARI,
BASTIANON, EDMONDS, AND
RAYGOZA FOR INSUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO EFFECT SERVICE OF
PROCESS (ECF No. 227)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

The action proceeds against

Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Edmonds, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M.
Gonzalez, Johnson, O’Neal, Parsons, Raygoza, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Zakari,
Bastianon, Casio, Cisneros, Campos, and Coronado on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claims. (ECF No. 160.)
Service on Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza was returned
unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 177, 179, 193 & 194.) In July 2014, Plaintiff was ordered to
show cause why these Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to provide
sufficient information for the Marshals to serve the summons and complaint. (ECF No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

195.)

Plaintiff responded and requested additional time to obtain responses to a

pending motion to compel discovery of the full names of these Defendants (ECF Nos.
197 & 198.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel in part and discharged the
order to show cause. (ECF No. 199.)
After Plaintiff failed to take further steps to effect service on Zakari, Bastianon,
Edmonds, and Raygoza, the Court ordered him a second time on March 17, 2015 to
show cause why these Defendants should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 227.) Plaintiff
has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause, and the time period to do so has
passed.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

11

14

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.

15

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon

16

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

17

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

18

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and . . .

19

[he] should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service

20

where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties. . . ” Walker v.

21

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted),

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

(internal quotations and citation omitted). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to

26

provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the

27

summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is

28

appropriate. Id., at 1421-22.

12
13

2

1
2
3

Here, Plaintiff has not offered any explanation why he has not and cannot provide
information sufficient to effect service of process upon Defendants Zakari, Bastianon,
Edmonds, and Raygoza. The obligation to do so is on Plaintiff, not Defendants. Id.

4
Absent additional information about said Defendants’ whereabouts, further attempts at
5
6

service would be futile, and it appears that no further information will be forthcoming.

7

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the undersigned FINDS that the avenues

8

available to locate and serve Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza

9

have been exhausted and RECOMMENDS that all four Defendants be dismissed from

10
11

this action without prejudice.
These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District

12
13
14

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any

15

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

16

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

17

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

18
19

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

20
21
22

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923
F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

April 27, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4