Griffin v. Kern Medical Center

Filing 41

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service of Process signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 006/27/2012. Show Cause Response due by 7/31/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ROBERT GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01782-MJS PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS

v.
KERN MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

13

(ECF No. 39)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

14
/

15
16

Plaintiff Robert Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to
18
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)
19
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 2, 2010,
20
against Defendant Frank Chin. (ECF Nos. 20 & 28.) The United States Marshal was
21
ordered to initiate service of process on December 2, 2011. (ECF No. 32.) Defendant
22
Chin, however, has not been located for service, despite numerous attempts by the
23
Marshal.
24
Rule 4(m) provides that
25
26
27

[i]f 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.

28
1

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and . . . should not

6

be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

(quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a pro

13

se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect

14

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

15

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

16

After Defendant Chin’s waiver of service was returned unexecuted, the Marshall

17

attempted personal service on him. (ECF No. 39.) When attempting personal service, the

18

Marshall was informed that no one by the name of “Dr. Frank Chin” worked or had ever

19

worked at worked at Kern Medical Center. (Id.)

20

Based on this information, the Court finds that the avenues available to locate and

21

serve Defendant Chin have been exhausted. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. It appears that

22

dismissal of Defendant Chin is appropriate at this time. Since Plaintiff has not provided

23

sufficient information to effectuate service on the only remaining defendant in this action,

24

the action should be dismissed.

25

opportunity to show cause why the action should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s

26

failure to provide the Marshal with information sufficient to effect timely service of the

27

summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

28

However, The Court will provide Plaintiff with an

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
2

1.

1

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

2

show cause why this action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure

3

to provide the Marshal with information sufficient to effect timely service of

4

the summons and complaint ; and
2.

5

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

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
ci4d6

June 27, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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