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
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?