Wilhelm v. Rotman et al

Filing 40

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Rotman Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/8/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,

1:10cv0001 DLB PC

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
DR. A. ROTMAN, et al.,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT ROTMAN
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT
TO RULE 4(M)

12
Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Steven Hairl Wilhelm (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed on December 31, 2009. On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an order finding
service of the First Amended Complaint appropriate as to Defendant Dr. A. Rotman and requiring
Plaintiff to return service documents within thirty days.
On June 10, 2003, the United States Marshal returned the summons unexecuted.
Rule 4(m) provides that:

20
21
22
23
24
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States Marshal, upon
order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the

28
1

1

U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and [he] should not be penalized by having

2

his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed

3

to perform his duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations

4

and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

According to the unexecuted proof of service, the United States Marshal has tried to serve

11

Defendant Rotman numerous times without success. Summons was mailed on September 24, 2012,

12

but returned on October 19, 2012, because Defendant was no longer employed at the address. The

13

Marshal received a forwarding address and on October 26, 2012, sent the summons to the last known

14

address. As of March 21, 2013, the Marshal had not received a response. After another

15

unsuccessful attempt to serve summons, the Marshal concluded that he was unable to serve

16

Defendant.

17

Accordingly, the Marshal’s Office appears to have exhausted the avenues available to it in

18

attempting to locate and serve Defendant Rotman. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff shall be

19

provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant Rotman, the sole Defendant in this

20

action, should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order

21

or responds but fails to show cause, Defendant Rotman, and this action, shall be dismissed.

22

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

23

1.

24

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

cause why Defendant Rotman, and therefore this action, should not be dismissed; and

25
26
27
28
2

1
2

2.

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the

dismissal of Defendant Rotman and this action.

3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 8, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

9b0hied

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3