Meadows v. Reeves, et al.

Filing 47

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why this Matter should not be Dismissed; Response Required within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 3/26/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MICHANN MEADOWS,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00257-SMS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

v.
DR. REEVES,

(Doc. 46)
Defendant.

RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN THIRTY
(30) DAYS.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Michann Meadows is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 1013, the Court authorized

17
service of process and directed Plaintiff to complete and submit to the Court a USM-285 form and
18
19

summons to permit the U.S. Marshal Service to serve Dr. Ernest Reeves, the only defendant in this

20

action. After Plaintiff returned the necessary documents on August 19, 2013, the Court entered an

21

order, filed August 21, 2013, directing the U.S. Marshal Service to serve the amended complaint on

22

Defendant Reeves. On March 5, 2014, the Marshal Service returned the summons unexecuted,

23

reporting that it was unable to locate Defendant Reeves.

24

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon

25
order of the Court, shall serve the summons and complaint. F.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). "[A]n incarcerated
26
27
28

pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marsha for service of the
summons and complaint and . . . should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure
1

1

to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties." Walker

2

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

3

Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1975). When the

4

Marshal has failed to effect service, an incarcerated pro se plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she

5

has provided sufficient information to permit the marshal to identify the defendant and effectuate

6

service. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. When the pro se plaintiff is unable to provide accurate and

7
sufficient information to effectuate service within such time as is specified by the Court, the Court
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

may properly dismiss the complaint against the unserved defendant without prejudice. F.R.Civ.P.
4(m).
Because the Marshal reports that Defendant Reeves cannot be located, Rule 4(m) directs the
Court to give Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause why the case should not be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to serve Defendant Reeves. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:
1.

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

15
cause why this case should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure

16

to serve Defendant Ernest Reeves. Plaintiff may do so by providing

17
18

alternative or supplemental information adequate for the Marshal Service

19

to serve Defendant Reeves.

20

2.

21

Plaintiff's failure to show cause within thirty (30) days will result in
dismissal of this case without prejudice.

22
3.

Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order to show cause within thirty (30)

23
days shall result in dismissal of this case without prejudice.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 26, 2014

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3