Simonson v. Singh et al
ORDER DENYING 34 Request for Extension of Time to Provide Further Information about Defendant T. Singh; ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action should not be Dismissed for Failure to Identify Proper Defendant; Twenty-One Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/19/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE No. 1:16-cv-00126-LJO-MJS
ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PROVIDE
DEFENDANT T. SINGH
(ECF No. 34)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Officer T. Singh.
On May 17, 2017, after the United States Marshal was twice unsuccessful in
locating and serving Defendant, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide the Court, within
thirty days, with more information to help the USM locate Defendant. (ECF No. 31.) On
June 28, 2017, Plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days to provide this information
to the Court. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff now seeks another thirty day extension, averring that
the (unnamed) deputy who can provide Plaintiff Defendant Singh’s “true” first name has
not yet returned to her post. (ECF No. 34.)
That request is DENIED. Four months is more than adequate time to seek and
obtain such information if it is obtainable.
Plaintiff shall be REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE within twenty-one days why
Defendant Singh, and thus the entire action, should not be dismissed based on inability
to effectuate service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22
(9th Cir. 1994) (overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995))
(where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient
information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte
dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate.) If Plaintiff either fails to respond to
this order or responds but fails to show cause, the undersigned will recommend the
action be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 19, 2017
Michael J. Seng
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?