Moran v. Dutra et al

Filing 48

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Dedee Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M) signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/9/2013. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

NICOLAS MORAN,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.
K. DUTRA, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-0914-LJO-MJS PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT
DEDEE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED PURSUANT TO RULE
4(M)
(ECF No. 32)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

_____________________________________/

16
17
18

Plaintiff Nicolas Moran (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 7, 2011. The
20 action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Auten,
21 Dedee, Dutra, and Ryan.
22

Defendants Auten, Dutra, and Ryan waived service and entered appearances in

23 the action. However, the Marshal was not able to locate Defendant Dedee and service
24 was returned un-executed on July 29, 2013.
25
26
27
28

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If 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.

1
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order

2

3 of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R.
4 Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled
5 to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and [he] should not
6 be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S.
7 Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d
8 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted), abrogated on other
9 grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

“So long as the prisoner has

10 furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to
11 effect service is automatically good cause. . . .”

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (internal

12 quotations and citation omitted).
However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and

13

14 sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua
15 sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it to

16

1
17 locate and serve Defendant Dedee. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Accordingly, Plaintiff

18 shall show cause why Defendant Dedee should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
19 If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to show cause,
20 Defendant Dedee shall be dismissed from the action.
21

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

22

1.

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

23 show cause why Defendant Dedee should not be dismissed from this action; and
2.

24

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in

25 /////
26 /////
27 /////
28
The Marshal’s Office sought assistance from the prison and the Office of Legal Affairs for the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and still could not locate Defendant Dedee. (ECF No. 32.)
1

2

1 the dismissal of Defendant Dedee from this action.
2
3
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:

7

October 9, 2013

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

8
9

Michael J. Seng

ci4d6

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3