Oden v. State of California, et al.
ORDER DISCHARGING 41 Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Thomas Should Not Be Dismissed From This Action for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/17/2017. (Jessen, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DERRICK JESUS ODEN,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00873-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT THOMAS
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
(ECF No. 41)
Plaintiff Derrick Jesus Oden (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 9, 2014. This
action proceeds on Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed on September 16, 2015, against
Defendants J. Acebedo, S. Swaim, and R. Thomas for deliberate indifference to a serious risk in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Service by the United States Marshal
On August 7, 2017, following screening of the third amended complaint, the Court issued
an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this action upon
Defendants Acebedo, Swaim, and Thomas. (ECF No. 37.) On October 10, 2017, the United
States Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to Defendant Thomas. (ECF No. 39.)
On October 13, 2017, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant
Thomas should not be dismissed from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for
failure to effectuate service. (ECF No. 41.) That same day, the United States Marshal filed
returns of service executed as to Defendants Acebedo, Swaim, and Thomas, dated October 12,
In light of the waivers of service returned executed for all Defendants, the order to show
cause (ECF No. 41) is HEREBY DISCHARGED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 17, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?