Shepard v. Cohen et al

Filing 80

ORDER For Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Cohen Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Effect Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/28/15. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

1:11-cv-00535-LJO-GSA-PC

LAMONT SHEPARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT COHEN
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EFFECT
SERVICE
(Doc. 78.)

COHEN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Lamont Shepard (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

22

commencing this action on March 30, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the

23

Second Amended Complaint filed on May 19, 2014, against defendants Dr. Cohen, Sergeant J.

24

Lopez, Correctional Officer (C/O) Z. Dean, C/O J. Campbell, and Vera Brown (LVN) on

25

Plaintiff's due process claim, and against defendants Dr. Cohen, Sergeant J. Lopez, C/O Z.

26

Dean, and C/O J. Campbell on Plaintiff's excessive force claim. (Doc. 41.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

27

On August 22, 2014, the court issued an order directing the United States Marshal

28

(“Marshal”) to serve process upon defendants Brown and Cohen. (Doc. 54.) On May 26,
1

1

2015, the Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to defendant Cohen, indicating that

2

the Marshal was unable to locate defendant Cohen for service of process. (Doc. 78.)

3

II.

SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

4

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

5

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court
B on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff B 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.

6
7

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

9

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of
A>[A]n

10

the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

11

incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

12

for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action

13

dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to

14

perform his duties.=@ Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v.

15

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v.

16

Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). ASo long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary

17

to identify the defendant, the marshal=s failure to effect service is >automatically good cause . . .

18

.=@

19

Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and

20

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court=s sua sponte

21

dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th

22

Background

23

The return of service filed by the Marshal on May 26, 2015, indicates that on September

24

26, 2014, the Marshal mailed service documents to defendant Cohen at Corcoran State Prison

25

(“CSP”), at the address provided by Plaintiff. (Doc. 78.) There is no indication on the return of

26

service that the Marshal received any response to the mail service. (Id.) The Marshal certified

27

that he or she was unable to locate defendant Cohen, and made a notation, “5/26/15 Return

28

Unexecuted, Unable to Locate.” (Id.)
2

1

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show

2

cause why defendant Cohen should not be dismissed from this action for failure to serve

3

process. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate defendant

4

Cohen for service of process. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with additional

5

information, defendant Cohen shall be dismissed from this action.

6

III.

CONCLUSION

7

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9

show cause why defendant Cohen should not be dismissed from this action

10
11

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

pursuant to Rule 4(m); and
2.

12

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order may result in the dismissal of
defendant Cohen or dismissal of this action in its entirety.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 28, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3