Quiroga v. Chapa

Filing 22

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(M), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/7/6. 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
C. CHAPA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00071-SAB (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)
[ECF No. 21]

At the time Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he was a pretrial

17
18

detainee. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19

636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 16,

20

2016. Local Rule 302.

21

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendant C. Chapa for

22

sexual assault in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 23, 2016, the Court ordered the

23

United States Marshal to service the summons and complaint on Defendant Chapa. However, the

24

Marshal was not able to locate Defendant Chapa and service was returned un-executed on October 6,

25

2016.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

2

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on
motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - 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.

3
4
5

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the
6
Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
7

“[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

8
for service of the summons and complaint and [he] should not be penalized by having his action
9
dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform
10
11
12
13

his duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation
omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the
prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to
effect service is automatically good cause. . . .” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (internal quotations and

14
citation omitted). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and

15

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte

16
dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
17
18

At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it in attempting to
locate and serve Defendant Chapa.1 Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff shall be provided with an

19
opportunity to show cause why Defendant Chapa should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If
20
Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to show cause, this action will be
21
dismissed, without prejudice.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
28

1

The Marshal’s Office sought assistance from the County Counsel who indicated that C. Chapa longer
works for Kern County. Counsel advised that Chapa cannot be located and the County will not
represent her at this time. (ECF No. 21.)
2

1

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

why this action should not be dismissed; and
2.

4
5

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the

dismissal of this action.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

9

October 7, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3