Jones v. Mayberg et al

Filing 28

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Bryant Should Not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/15/2013. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 OSCAR W. JONES, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01530-SKO PC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT BRYANT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M) 10 v. 11 STEPHEN MAYBERG, et al., 12 (Doc. 27) Defendants. 13 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE / 14 15 Plaintiff Oscar W. Jones, a former civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 16 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25, 2010. This action is 17 proceeding against Defendants Bryant and Does 2 and 3 for violating the Due Process Clause 18 relating to the failure to transport Plaintiff for medical treatment. However, the United States 19 Marshal cannot serve unknown parties and service on Defendant Bryant has been unsuccessful. 20 Rule 4(m) provides that 21 [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. 22 23 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 25 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 26 Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 27 “‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. 28 Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and . . . should not be penalized by having his 1 1 action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to 2 perform his duties.’”1 Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. 3 Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 4 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify 5 the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause. . . .’” Walker, 14 6 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where 7 a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect 8 service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants 9 is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 10 Defendant Kathy Bryant is no longer employed at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH), and 11 therefore, CSH will not accept service on her behalf. (Doc. 27.) Because the address provided by 12 Plaintiff for Defendant Bryant is no longer valid, the Court finds that the avenue available in 13 attempting to locate and serve Defendant has been exhausted. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. It 14 appears that dismissal of Defendant Bryant is appropriate at this time, but Plaintiff shall be provided 15 with an opportunity to show cause why dismissal should not occur. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 16 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. 18 Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendant Bryant should not be dismissed from this action; and 19 2. 20 The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the dismissal of Defendant Bryant from this action, without prejudice. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: i0d3h8 March 15, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 1 28 As noted above, Plaintiff was a civil detainee rather than a prisoner, but as a result of his involuntary detention, Plaintiff was similarly situated to a prisoner. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?