Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 25

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Arbadia Should not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M) signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 01/17/2014. Show Cause Response due by 2/24/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

WILLIAM ATCHERLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
EDGAR CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00225 DLB PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT
ARBADIA SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on

19

February 17, 2012. This action is proceeding on the following cognizable claims: (1) violation

20
21
22

of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Holt, Barbolla, Ceballo, Anderson, Rios, Torres,
Ross, Arbadia, two Doe correctional officers and Doe LVNs; (2) medical negligence against
Defendants Holt, Barbolla, Clark, Ceballo, Anderson, Ross, Arbadia, Alade and Doe LVNs; and

23

(3) negligence against Defendants Rios, Torres, and two Doe correctional officers.
24
25
26
27
28

On December 24, 2013, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the
amended complaint on Defendants. On January 14, 2014, the United States Marshal returned
service unexecuted as to Defendant LVN Arbadia. The returns notes, “CDCR SI unable to
locate/identify.” ECF. No. 24.
1

1

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

4

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.

5

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

2
3

6

the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the

8

U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and [he] should not be penalized by

9

having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk

10

has failed to perform his duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal

11

quotations and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472

12

(1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the

13
14

defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is automatically good cause. . . .” Walker, 14
F.3d at 1422 (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to

15

provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons
16

and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate.

17
18
19
20
21

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it in
attempting to locate and serve Defendant Arbadia. Specifically, the return indicates that CDCR
utilized a Special Investigator to attempt to locate and identify Defendant Arbadia. Walker, 14

22

F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant

23

Arbadia should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this

24

order or responds but fails to show cause, Defendant Arbadia shall be dismissed from this action.

25
26
27
28
2

1

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

2

1.

3

cause why Defendant Arbadia should not be dismissed from this action; and

4
5

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

2.

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

dismissal of Defendant Arbadia from this action.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
13

Dated:

14

/s/ Dennis

January 17, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

DEAC_Signature-END:

16

9b0hied

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3