King v. Holland et al

Filing 24

ORDER DISCHARGING 22 Order to Show Cause why Defendant Solis should not be Dismissed from this Action for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/5/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHAD KING, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:15-cv-01885-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. S. HOLLAND, et al., Defendants. ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SOLIS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE (ECF No. 22) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Rashad King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 20 complaint, filed on December 18, 2015, for violations of the Eighth Amendment against 21 Defendants Holland and Duncan for excessive force during the first escort; against Defendants, 22 Holland, Duncan and Solis for excessive force in the second cell; against Defendant Tingley for 23 failing to intervene in the attack by Defendants Holland, Solis and Duncan in the second cell; and 24 an Eighth Amendment sexual assault against Defendant Holland. 25 On December 22, 2016, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to initiate service of 26 process in this action upon Defendants Holland, Duncan, Solis and Tingley. (ECF No. 18.) 27 However, the Marshal was unable to locate Defendant Solis and service was returned unexecuted 28 1 1 for this defendant on January 26, 2017. (ECF No. 21.) 2 On January 27, 2017, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant 3 Solis should not be dismissed from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for 4 failure effectuate service. (ECF No. 22.) On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the 5 show cause order. Plaintiff requests that Defendant Solis not be dismissed from this action, 6 contending that he provided sufficient information for service and that he was unaware of the 7 termination of Defendant Solis. Plaintiff believes that CDCR or CCI State Prison has information 8 of the last known address or contact information for Defendant Solis. (ECF No. 23.) 9 In light of Plaintiff’s response, the order to show cause is HEREBY DISCHARGED. By 10 separate order, the Court will issue a second order directing the United States Marshals Service to 11 attempt re-service of Defendant Solis and demonstrate that all available avenues were exhausted 12 in attempting to serve Defendant Solis. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara March 5, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?