Harrison v. Adams, et al

Filing 236

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Defendant SW Campos for Insufficient Information to 233 Effect Service of Process signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 05/12/2015. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 6/1/2015.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL D. HARRISON,

12
13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15
16

T. MOORE, et al.,

17

Case No. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS DEFENDANT SW CAMPOS
FOR INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS (ECF
No. 233)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE

Defendants.

18
19
20
21

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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

22
23
24

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

25

Bastianon, Casio, Cisneros, Campos, and Coronado on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

26

claims. (ECF No. 160.)

27
28

Defendants moved to quash service on Campos after realizing that that the Litigation

1

Coordinator had mistakenly accepted service on behalf of a Correctional Officer

2

Campos, when Plaintiff’s claims were in fact directed at Social Worker (SW) Campos.

3
4

(ECF No. 201.) SW Campos had since left employment with CDCR, and the Litigation
Coordinator’s subsequent attempts to contact him/her were unsuccessful (Id.) Service on

5
6
7

Defendant Campos was returned unexecuted on October 21, 2014. (ECF No. 214.)
Plaintiff made no further efforts to serve SW Campos.

8

The Court granted the motion to quash service on Campos and ordered Plaintiff

9

to show cause why Campos should not be dismissed for insufficient service of process

10
11

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (ECF No. 233.) Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show
Cause by acknowledging that he did “not have any new information to give the U.S.

12
13
14
15
16
17

Marshals” regarding SW Campos’s name and address. (ECF No. 235.) He requests the
Court to “stay the unserved defendants until we can get them served”, i.e., for an
indeterminate amount of time.
II.

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

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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.
Good cause justifying an extension of the 120-day deadline may be found in a
number of circumstances: for instance, when an incarcerated Plaintiff has provided the
Marshals with “information necessary to identify the defendant,” but the Marshals
nonetheless fail to effect service, Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994),

26

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); willful

27

misrepresentations of a defendant’s identity by prison officials or defendants’ counsel,

28

2

1

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1058 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by

2

WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997); excusable neglect on the part

3

of Plaintiff,

4

unserved defendant was nonetheless on notice of the suit against him or her; lack of

5

prejudice to defendant; or “severe prejudice” to Plaintiff. Id. However, lack of legal

6

training or pro se status does not constitute good cause. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d

7

1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007); Matasareanu v. Williams, 183 F.R.D. 242, 246 (C.D. Cal.

8

1998). Nor does a bare statement by the plaintiff that he or she tried and failed to effect

9

service. Efaw, 473 F.3d at 1040 n. 1.

In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 2001); evidence that the

10

Here, Plaintiff has not shown cause to justify an extension. He does not have

11

correct information relating to Campos to give to the Marshals, does not allege that SW

12

Campos is aware of this lawsuit, pleads no facts suggesting that delay in service was

13

excusable, does not indicate that he would be prejudiced by dismissal or that

14

Defendants would not be prejudiced by an open-ended extension of time for service, and

15

does not suggest that Defendants misrepresented their failed efforts to contact SW

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Campos. Moreover, the discovery deadline passed 10 months ago; giving Plaintiff more
time to uncover Campos’ true contact information seems pointless. Therefore, the Court
will recommend that SW Campos be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m).
III.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The undersigned FINDS that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why

Defendant SW Campos should not be dismissed, and RECOMMENDS that Campos be
dismissed from this action without prejudice.
These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

25
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any
26
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a
27
28

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
3

1

Recommendations.”

2

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to

3

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

4

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

5

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

May 12, 2015

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

4