Shehee v. Perez et al
Filing
54
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Lain Should not be Dismissed from this Action for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 08/27/2018. Show Cause Response due by 10/1/2018.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01346-AWI-BAM (PC)
12
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
DEFENDANT LAIN SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE
SERVICE
13
14
v.
PEREZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
(ECF Nos. 50, 52)
16
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
17
18
I.
Introduction
19
Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se
20
in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was a civil detainee at the time of the
21
events at issue. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant
22
Perez for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and against Defendant Lain
23
for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
24
II.
Service by the United States Marshal
25
On July 18, 2018, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate
26
service of process in this action upon Defendants Perez and Lain. (ECF No. 49.) On August 15,
27
2018, the United States Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to Defendant Lain. (ECF
28
No. 50.) Upon review of the subpoena, the Court ordered the Marshal to attempt re-service using
1
1
a different spelling of Defendant Lain’s name, and providing further information regarding
2
Defendant Lain’s job title and assignment during the events in question. (ECF No. 51.) On
3
August 21, 2018, the Marshal again filed a return of service unexecuted as to Defendant Lain.
4
(ECF No. 52.)
5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:
6
If a defendant is not served within 120 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
10
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
11
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the
12
court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro
13
se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the
14
summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed
15
for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the
16
duties required of each of them . . . .” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). “So
17
long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the
18
marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d
19
1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115
20
(1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and
21
sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte
22
dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22.
23
Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to serve Defendant Lain with the information that
24
Plaintiff provided. However, the Marshal was twice informed that the Department of State
25
Hospitals – Coalinga does not and has never had an employee by the name of Jerri Lady, Jerri
26
Lain, or Jirri Lan. (ECF Nos. 50, 52.) Plaintiff therefore has not provided sufficient information
27
to identify and locate Defendant Lain for service of process. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the
28
Marshal with the necessary information to identify and locate this defendant, Defendant Lain
2
1
shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will
2
provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why Defendant Lain should not be dismissed
3
from the action at this time.
4
III.
5
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1.
7
8
9
Conclusion and Order
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show
cause why Defendant Lain should not be dismissed from this action; and
2.
The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the
dismissal of Defendant Lain from this action.
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
August 27, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?