Paredez v. Yates et al

Filing 26

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) re 11 First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/29/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RICHARD PAREDEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
RAMIREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01672-AWI-DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ECF Nos. 24, 25
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
16

Plaintiff Richard Paredez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended

19

Complaint against Defendant Ramirez for violation of the First Amendment.

20

On April 19, 2013, the United States Marshal, who must effect service of process on behalf

21

of plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, returned a summons for Defendant Ramirez unexecuted.

22

ECF No. 24. According to the USM-285 form, there are eleven individuals with the last name

23

Ramirez who work at Pleasant Valley State Prison. On April 23, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

24

show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to provide

25

sufficient information for the United States Marshal to effect service of process. ECF No. 25. As of

26

the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded.

27
28

Where a pro se, in forma pauperis plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and
sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte
1

1

dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th

2

Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated in part on

3

other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Because Defendant Ramirez is the only

4

Defendant in this action, the Court will recommend dismissal of this action.

5
6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

7

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

8

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days

9

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

10

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

11

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

12

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

13

1991).

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 29, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18

DEAC_Signature-END:

19

3b142a

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2