Sims v. Wegman et al

Filing 16

ORDER for Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Case Should not be Dismissed without Prejudice for Plaintiff's Failure to Effect Service signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 09/22/016. Show Cause Response due by 10/25/2016.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 Case No. 1:14-cv-00415-EPG (PC) QUINCY SIMS, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE (ECF NO. 15.) v. C. WEGMAN; C. BOWMAN; M. SEAMAN; AND C. HAMMOND, Defendants. 16 THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 Plaintiff, Quincy Sims, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 21 Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 23 commencing this action on March 24, 2014. (ECF No. 1.). This action now proceeds on the 24 First Amended Complaint filed on March 10, 2015, against defendant C. Bowman (Chaplain) 25 on Plaintiff's Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and First 26 Amendment free exercise claims. (ECF Nos. 8 & 12.). Plaintiff filed the Complaint 27 On June 7, 2016, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal 28 (“Marshal”) to serve process upon defendant C. Bowman. (ECF No. 14.) On September 16, 1 1 2016, the Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted, indicating that the Marshal was unable 2 to locate defendant Cohen for service of process. (ECF No. 15.) 3 II. SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL 4 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), 5 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court B on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff B 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. 6 7 8 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 1 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of A>[A]n 10 the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 11 incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. 12 Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having 13 his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has 14 failed to perform his duties.=@ Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting 15 Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by Sandin 16 v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). ASo long as the prisoner has furnished the information 17 necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal=s failure to effect service is >automatically good 18 cause . . . .=@ Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th 19 Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and 20 sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court=s sua sponte 21 dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 22 Background 23 The return of service filed by the Marshal on September 16, 2016, indicates that, 24 according to the CDCR, defendant C. Bowman resigned, joined the army, and didn’t leave a 25 forwarding address. (ECF No. 15.) There is no indication on the return of service that the 26 27 28 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) was amended in 2015 to reduce the time for serving a defendant from 120 days to 90 days. However, the time period to serve defendant C. Bowman has expired under both the preamendment version of the rule and the current version rule. 2 1 Marshal received a response from defendant C. Bowman. (Id.) The Marshal certified that he 2 or she was unable to locate defendant C. Bowman. (Id.) 3 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show 4 cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve process (the only remaining 5 defendant in the case, defendant C. Bowman, has not been served). Plaintiff has not provided 6 sufficient information to identify and locate defendant C. Bowman for service of process. If 7 Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with additional information, the case shall be 8 dismissed. 9 III. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 12 show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 13 Rule 4(m). 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 22, 2016 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?