Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 71

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Defendant A. Seinz from Action; Objections, if any, Due within Fourteen Days signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/1/2012. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 6/18/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-DLB PC

8
Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
DEFENDANT A. SEINEZ FROM ACTION
(DOC. 68)

9
v.
10
KEN CLARK, et al.,
11

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

Defendants.
12
13
/
14
15

Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California

16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), proceeding pro se and in forma
17 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 11, 2012, the United
18 States Marshal, who must effect service of process on behalf of plaintiffs proceeding in forma
19 pauperis, returned a summons for Defendant A. Seinez unexecuted. Doc. 68. According to the
20 summons, Defendant A. Seinez did not live at the address provided by the Legal Affairs division
21 of CDCR. This was the United States Marshal’s second attempt to serve process on Defendant
22 Seinez. Where a pro se, in forma pauperis plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate
23 and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua
24 sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415,
25 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)),
26 abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
27

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant A. Seinez be dismissed

28 from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
1

1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
3 (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file
4 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
5 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections
6 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
7 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
3b142a

June 1, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2