Jones v. Arnette, et al.

Filing 95

ORDER for Plaintiff to Provide Information Sufficient to Identify Defendants Vasquez and Lopez and to Identify Their Location(s) for Service of Process signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/17/2021. 45-day deadline. (Jessen, A)

Case 1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA Document 95 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY JONES,

12
13
14
15

1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY
DEFENDANTS VASQUEZ AND LOPEZ AND
TO IDENTIFY THEIR LOCATION(S) FOR
SERVICE OF PROCESS

vs.
ARNETTE, et al.,
Defendants.

FORTY-FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

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 Second Amended

Complaint, filed on September 10, 2018, on (1) Plaintiff’s ADA claims against defendants
Vasquez, Keener, Gonzales,1 Flores, Arnett,2 Zamora, and Lopez, in their official capacities; 2)
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendants Vasquez,
Keener, and Gonzales; and (3) Plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Vasquez,
Keener, and Gonzales. (ECF No. 33.)

27
1

Sued as Gonzalez.

2

Sued as Arnette.

28
1

Case 1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA Document 95 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2

1

On February 8, 2021, the U.S. Marshal returned summonses to the court unexecuted for

2

defendants Lopez and Vasquez with notations that there was not enough information to identify

3

them for service of process. (ECF No. 69.) On March 24, 2021, the court issued an order

4

requiring Plaintiff to show cause why defendants Lopez and Vasquez should not be dismissed

5

from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect service on the two defendants. (ECF No.

6

72.) After being granted an extension of time Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause

7

on June 23, 2021. (ECF No. 91.)

8

Plaintiff argues that defendants Lopez and Vasquez should not be dismissed for failure to

9

serve them because he has not exhausted his efforts to identify them. Plaintiff reports that he

10

made a discovery request for defendants to produce service information, and he plans to request

11

information from CDCR through the litigation coordinator. Plaintiff states that the Attorney

12

General has acknowledged that she will represent defendants Lopez and Vasquez upon service,

13

and Plaintiff has served discovery requests on the Attorney General’s office for these defendants.

14

Plaintiff shall be required to provide sufficient information to the court within 45 days to

15

identify and locate defendants Lopez and Vasquez for service of process of the date of service of

16

this order,

17

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

Within 45 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to provide

19

the court with sufficient information to identify and locate defendants Lopez and

20

Vasquez for service of process; and

21

2.

22

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that
defendants Lopez and Vasquez be dismissed from this case.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 17, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2