King v. Holland et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:15-cv-01885-BAM (PC)
S. HOLLAND, et al.,
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)
Plaintiff Rashad King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
complaint, filed on December 18, 2015, for violations of the Eighth Amendment against
Defendants Holland and Duncan for excessive force during the first escort; against Defendants,
Holland, Duncan and Solis for excessive force in the second cell; against Defendant Tingley for
failing to intervene in the attack by Defendants Holland, Solis and Duncan in the second cell; and
an Eighth Amendment sexual assault against Defendant Holland.
On December 22, 2016, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to initiate service of
process in this action upon Defendants Holland, Duncan, Solis and Tingley. (ECF No. 18.)
However, the Marshal was unable to locate Defendant Solis and service was returned unexecuted
for this defendant on January 26, 2017. (ECF No. 21.)
On January 27, 2017, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant
Solis should not be dismissed from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for
failure effectuate service. (ECF No. 22.) On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the
show cause order. Plaintiff requests that Defendant Solis not be dismissed from this action,
contending that he provided sufficient information for service and that he was unaware of the
termination of Defendant Solis. Plaintiff believes that CDCR or CCI State Prison has information
of the last known address or contact information for Defendant Solis. (ECF No. 23.)
In light of Plaintiff’s response, the order to show cause is HEREBY DISCHARGED. By
separate order, the Court will issue a second order directing the United States Marshals Service to
attempt re-service of Defendant Solis and demonstrate that all available avenues were exhausted
in attempting to serve Defendant Solis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 5, 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?