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)

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