Sokolsky v. State of California et al

Filing 79

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT REBECCA DOMRESE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/7/2017. Show Cause Response due by 7/31/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT REBECCA
DOMRESE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
EFFECT SERVICE

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

Mark S. Sokolsky (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

23

commencing this action on January 11, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with

24

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on February 4, 2016, against defendants Rebecca

25

Domrese, Audrey King, Daniel Meek, Jeannie Porter, and Isaac Bonsu (“Defendants”) for

26

denial of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and violation of RLUIPA; and

27

defendants Domrese, King, Porter, and Bonsu for violation of due process based on conditions

28

of confinement. (ECF No. 30.)
1

1

On December 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.)

2

On March 30, 2017, defendants Meek, Bonsu, King, Coyne,1 and Porter filed a motion for

3

summary judgment or partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 68.) These two motions are

4

pending.

5

On June 29, 2017, the court received notice from the United States Marshal (“Marshal”)

6

that the Marshal was unable to locate defendant Rebecca Domrese for service of process. The

7

Marshal reported that Rebecca Domrese is no longer a state employee and they have no

8

forwarding information.

9

II.

SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

10

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

11

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.

12
13
14
15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of
“‘[A]n

16

the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information

23

necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically

24

good cause . . . .’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598,

25

603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with

26
27
28

1

Defendant Christine Coyne was dismissed from this case on May 25, 2016. (ECF No. 39.)
2

1

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

2

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

3

Background

4

On September 17, 2015, the court issued an order directing the Marshal to initiate

5

service of process upon defendant Rebecca Domrese in this action. (ECF No. 20.) On June 29,

6

2017, the court received notice from the Marshal that the Marshal was unable to locate

7

defendant Rebecca Domrese for service of process using the address provided by Plaintiff.

8

The Marshal also reported that Rebecca Domrese is no longer a state employee and they have

9

no forwarding information.

10

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

11

cause why defendant Rebecca Domrese should not be dismissed from the action at this time for

12

inability to serve process. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to locate defendant

13

Rebecca Domrese for service of process. The Marshal has attempted to locate this defendant at

14

the address provided by Plaintiff, without success. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal

15

with additional information, defendant Rebecca Domrese shall be dismissed from the action.

16

III.

CONCLUSION

17

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

18

1.

Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall

19

show cause why defendant Rebecca Domrese should not be dismissed from this

20

action pursuant to Rule 4(m); and

21

2.

22

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order or failure to show cause may result in
the dismissal of this action.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 7, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3