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)

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