Jones v. Arnette, et al.
Filing
122
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That Defendants Vasquez and Lopez be Dismissed From This Case Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Effect Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/31/2022. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN DAYS. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEREMY JONES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
ARNETTE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS
VASQUEZ AND LOPEZ BE DISMISSED
FROM THIS CASE BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE
(ECF No. 118.)
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I.
BACKGROUND
Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s ADA claims against
defendants Vasquez, Keener, Gonzalez, Flores, Arnett,1 Zamora, and Lopez; Plaintiff’s Eighth
28
1
Sued as Arnette.
1
1
Amendment claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener and Gonzalez; and Plaintiff’s due
2
process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzalez.
3
4
All of the Defendants have been served except Defendants Vasquez and Lopez.
II.
SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL
5
Pursuant to Rule 4(m),
6
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.
7
8
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
10
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of
11
the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “[A]n incarcerated
12
pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service
13
of the summons and complaint and . . . should not be penalized by having his action dismissed
14
for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his
15
duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912
16
F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472
17
(1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and
18
sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte
19
dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
20
Background
21
On June 8, 2020, the Court issued an order directing the Marshal to initiate service of
22
process upon Defendants in this action. (ECF No. 48.) On November 6, 2020, the court issued
23
a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting a discovery deadline of April 6, 2020 and a dispositive
24
motions filing deadline of June 6, 2021. (ECF No. 59.)
25
On February 8, 2021, summonses were returned unexecuted by the United States Marshal
26
as to Defendants Vasquez and Lopez with the following notations: “Returning process
27
unexecuted due to not enough information to identify Vasquez,” and “Returning process
28
unexecuted due to not enough information to identify Lopez.” (ECF No. 69.)
2
1
On March 24, 2021, the court issued an order to show cause, requiring Plaintiff to respond
2
and show cause why defendants Lopez and Vasquez should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s
3
failure to provide sufficient information to effect service. (ECF No. 72.) On June 23, 2021,
4
Plaintiff responded, arguing that defendants Lopez and Vasquez should not be dismissed because
5
“all avenues to serve them has [sic] yet to be explored.” (Id. at 90:20-21.) Plaintiff indicated
6
that he had made a request through discovery to produce service information, and he had an
7
opportunity to speak to the litigations coordinator directly.
8
On July 1, 2021, Defendants’ request to modify the scheduling order was granted, and
9
the discovery deadline was extended to August 5, 2021. (ECF No. 93.) On August 2, 2021,
10
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 97), and on October 18, 2021, the motion was granted
11
in part (ECF No. 111). The court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for
12
Production No. 3, which sought “adequate information in order to properly serve Defendants
13
Vasquez and Lopez,” within thirty days. (ECF No. 111 at 5:3-5.)
14
On September 30, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to modify the court’s scheduling
15
order. (ECF No. 109.) On October 15, 2021, the court granted Defendants’ motion and vacated
16
the deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, pending resolution of the pending
17
service issues. (ECF No. 110.)
18
On December 3, 2021, the court issued another order requiring Plaintiff to provide
19
information sufficient to identify defendants Vasquez and Lopez and locate them for service of
20
process, within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 117.) The twenty-one-day time period has expired,
21
and Plaintiff has not provided the information requested by the court.
22
III.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
23
Plaintiff has not provided information sufficient to serve Defendants Vasquez and Lopez
24
with process. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the court shall recommend that Defendants
25
Vasquez and Lopez be dismissed from this action, without prejudice.
26
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
27
1.
28
Defendants Vasquez and Lopez be dismissed from this case pursuant to Rule
4(m), without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect service; and
3
1
2.
2
This case be referred back to the magistrate judge for all further proceedings,
including the issuance of a new scheduling order.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 31, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?