Lescallett v. Diaz et al

Filing 50

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that all Doe Defendants be DISMISSED and this aciton CLOSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (m) re 11 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Darrell Junior Lescallett ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 05/01/17. Objections to F&R due (14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL JUNIOR LESCALLETT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No. 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF DOE
DEFENDANTS AND DISMISSAL OF
ACTION

R. DIAZ, et al.,
(ECF No. 48)

15

Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16

Plaintiff Darrell Junior Lescallett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for claims of retaliation against Doe Defendants regarding

20

Plaintiff’s identification as a 2-5 gang affiliate and placement on a modified program.1 (ECF No.

21

15.)

22

I.

Background

23

On June 29, 2015, the Court issued an order finding service of Plaintiff’s second amended

24

complaint appropriate, and requiring Plaintiff within one-hundred twenty (120) days to provide

25

written notice identifying Doe Defendants with enough information to locate the defendants for

26
27
28

1

Defendants Gipson and Broomfield were granted summary judgment on March 31, 2017. (ECF
No. 47.) All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action on July 21, 2015.
(ECF No. 18.)
1

1

service of process. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff failed to provide written notice to the Court

2

identifying Doe Defendants within the specified time limit.

3

On April 5, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why the remaining Doe

4

Defendants should not be dismissed and this action closed. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff filed a

5

response to the Court’s order to show cause on April 24, 2017. (ECF No. 49.)

6

Plaintiff asserts that he has made every effort to name the Doe Defendants, but he has

7

been unable to do so because his property will come up missing, his mail will be lost, or he is

8

taken to administrative segregation in order to discourage him from litigating or to cause him to

9

miss deadlines. Plaintiff states that he has been able to obtain the names of some of the Doe

10

Defendants employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and

11

working at Corcoran State Prison, and that he includes exhibits demonstrating the barriers he has

12

faced preventing the identification of the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff requests that the Court

13

provide the proper forms to serve Doe Defendants, and facilitate service of process by the United

14

States Marshal. (ECF No. 49.)

15

II.

16

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m):

17
18
19
20
21
22

Legal Standard

If a defendant is not served within 90 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon

23

order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]

24

prisoner ‘is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service’ . . . as long as he or she ‘provide[s]

25

the necessary information to help effectuate service.’” Schrubb v. Lopez, 617 Fed. Appx. 832,

26

832 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on

27

other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)). “So long as the prisoner has furnished

28

the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is
2

1

‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting

2

Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by

3

Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483–84. However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with

4

accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s

5

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

6

III.

7

Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause is a list entitled “Doe

Discussion

8

Defendants,” including eight (8) individuals: Correctional Officer R. Meraz, Correctional Officer

9

D. Uribe, Correctional officer R. L. McMurrey, Lieutenant B. J. Weaver, Lieutenant R. Juarez,

10

Captain R. Whitfield, Correctional Officer J. Vargas, and Lieutenant J. Prudhel. (ECF No. 49,

11

pp. 5–6.) Of these individuals, four—Officer McMurrey, Lieutenant Weaver, Lieutenant Juarez,

12

and Lieutenant Prudhel—are named defendants who were dismissed from this action. (ECF Nos.

13

11, 18.) The remaining four—Officer Meraz, Officer Uribe, Captain Whitfield, and Officer

14

Vargas—are individuals who were named and identified in the second amended complaint. (ECF

15

No. 11.)

16

Exhibit B is a partial copy of the Court’s June 2, 2015 screening order, (ECF No. 12), with

17

handwritten annotations. (ECF No. 49, pp. 8–18.) Plaintiff has circled the names of defendants

18

and other individuals named in the complaint. However, Plaintiff does not provide any

19

explanation detailing the efforts he has taken to obtain the identities of the Doe Defendants, or

20

what barriers he faced that prevented him from obtaining their identities.

21

Plaintiff has already had the opportunity to assert claims against all individuals originally

22

named as defendants or identified in his complaint, and has failed to state cognizable claims

23

against them. Plaintiff may not now name the same individuals as Doe Defendants in order to

24

sustain this action.

25

IV.

26

Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient information to identify the Doe Defendants so the

27

United States Marshal may serve the summons and complaint. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to

28

set forth good cause for his failure to identify the Doe Defendants. Accordingly, the Court

Conclusion and Recommendation

3

1

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that all Doe Defendants be dismissed and this action closed, without

2

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

3

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

4

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

5

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may

6

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

7

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

8

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

9

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

10

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 1, 2017

A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4