Ageel v. Gonzales et al

Filing 35

ORDER Dismissing the Matter as to Defendants Thornberry and Knight signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 02/24/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OMAR AGEEL,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 1:09-cv-02076 JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING THE MATTER AS TO
DEFENDANTS THORNBERRY AND
KNIGHT

vs.
F. GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
18

On June 21, 2011, the Court directed the United States Marshal to service Defendants Thornberry

19

and Knight the summons and complaint. (Doc. 21) The summons were returned unexecuted. (Docs.

20

22, 23) The Marshal reported that Defendants Thornberry and Knight were no longer employed by the

21

CDCR and that the CDCR had no forwarding information.

22

On February 2, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide additional information as to where

23

Defendants Thornberry and Knight could be served. (Doc. 33) The Court warned Plaintiff that his

24

failure to provide the information would result in an order dismissing the matter according to Fed. R.

25

Civ. P. 4. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to comply.

26

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4,

27

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 the defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But

28

1

1

if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.

2
3

Rule 4(m) “encourages efficient litigation by minimizing the time between the commencement of an

4

action and service of process.” Electric Specialty Co. v. Road and Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 311

5

(9th Cir. 1992) (addressing former F. R. Civ. P. 4(j).)

6

This matter has been pending for more than two years. Service to Defendants Thornberry and

7

Knight has been pending since June 2011. The Court has no jurisdiction over these defendants unless

8

they are served and the Court and the US Marshal have no information about where they are located.

9

Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to provide service information is deemed an admission that he, too, does

10

not know where service may be accomplished.

11

ORDER

12

Therefore, on its own motion, the Court ORDERS,

13

1.

14

The complaint as to Defendants Thornberry and Knight is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: February 24, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2