Simonson v. Singh et al

Filing 35

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG SIMONSON, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. T. SINGH, Defendant. CASE No. 1:16-cv-00126-LJO-MJS ORDER DENYING SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT T. SINGH (ECF No. 34) 18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO IDENTIFY PROPER DEFENDANT 19 TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 1 June 28, 2017, Plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days to provide this information 2 to the Court. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff now seeks another thirty day extension, averring that 3 the (unnamed) deputy who can provide Plaintiff Defendant Singh’s “true” first name has 4 not yet returned to her post. (ECF No. 34.) 5 6 That request is DENIED. Four months is more than adequate time to seek and obtain such information if it is obtainable. 7 Plaintiff shall be REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE within twenty-one days why 8 Defendant Singh, and thus the entire action, should not be dismissed based on inability 9 to effectuate service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 10 (9th Cir. 1994) (overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)) 11 (where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient 12 information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte 13 dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate.) If Plaintiff either fails to respond to 14 this order or responds but fails to show cause, the undersigned will recommend the 15 action be dismissed without prejudice. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 19, 2017 /s/ 19 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?