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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?