Abercrombie v. Corcoran State Prison et al

Filing 25

ORDER for Plaintiff to Provide Further Evidence of Defendant Kaut's Current Address, or Case Will be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/21/2014. Thirty Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:11-cv-00048-GSA-PC

RICHARD ABERCROMBIE,

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT
KAUT’S CURRENT ADDRESS, OR CASE
WILL BE DISMISSED
(Doc. 22.)

vs.
DR. KAUT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Richard Abercrombie (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

23

commencing this action on January 11, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On January 27, 2011, Plaintiff

24

consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other

25

parties have appeared in this action. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the

26

Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all

27

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local

28

Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's initial Complaint filed on January 11, 2011,

2

against sole defendant Dr. Richard M. Kaut (ADefendant@), for denial of medical care in

3

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

4

On January 13, 2012, and again on May 31, 2013, the Court issued orders directing the

5

Marshal to initiate service of process upon Defendant Kaut using addresses provided by

6

Plaintiff. (Docs. 13, 20.) The Marshal attempted service at a P.O. Box and three different

7

street addresses and was unable to locate the Defendant. (Docs. 15, 22.)

8

On February 27, 2014, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this

9

case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service upon Defendant Kaut. (Doc. 23.) On

10

March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff

11

asserts that he “found information through Google of Dr. Richard Kaut, which is current as of

12

02/03/14 . . . show[ing] two new addresses and a place of business at Susanville emergency

13

medicine.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff attached six pages of exhibits which appear to be copies printed

14

from Google websites, showing identification information for Dr. Richard Kaut, including

15

multiple addresses. (Exhs., Doc. 24 at 2-7.)

16

II.

DISCUSSION

17

Plaintiff may not simply submit all the documentation he finds on the Internet in

18

response to a name search and expect the court to find Defendant’s most current addresses.

19

Plaintiff asserts that he found “two new addresses” but does not specify which two addresses.

20

(Doc. 24 at 1.) Plaintiff’s documentation shows multiple addresses for Dr. Richard Kaut in

21

Nevada, Maine, California, and Oregon.

22

Moreover, Plaintiff may not expect the Marshal to attempt service at new addresses

23

without any assurance of reliability. Plaintiff asserts that the addresses are “current as of

24

02/03/2014.” (Id.) However, the fact that an address was found pursuant to an Internet search

25

conducted on 02/03/2014 is not evidence that the address is current as of that date. The court

26

also notes that Plaintiff’s documentation shows multiple professional license numbers for Dr.

27

Richard Kaut. Thus, there is no assurance that Plaintiff’s documentation even pertains to the

28
2

1

same Dr. Richard Kaut who is the Defendant in this action. Plaintiff has not shown cause why

2

defendant Kaut should not be dismissed from this action for failure to serve process.

3

Plaintiff shall be afforded another opportunity to provide a current address for defendant

4

Kaut, within thirty days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is advised that the court

5

will not direct the Marshal to make a third attempt to serve defendant Kaut unless Plaintiff

6

informs the court of specific new address(es) for Richard Kaut, with some assurance that the

7

address(es) are current, reliable, and belong to the Defendant in this action.

8

III.

9
10

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s response filed on March 17, 2014 does not sufficiently show cause

11

why defendant Richard Kaut should not be dismissed from this action for failure

12

to effect service;

13

2.

Plaintiff is granted another opportunity to provide a current address for

14

defendant Kaut, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, as

15

instructed by this order; and

16

3.

17

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, defendant Kaut shall be dismissed
from this action, dismissing this case in its entirety.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 21, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3