Johnson v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 20

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendants Rocha, Jones, and Mrs. K Should Not be Dismissed From This Action for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/26/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CEDRIC CHESTER JOHNSON,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01371-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS
ROCHA, JONES, AND MRS. K SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE
TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE (ECF No. 19)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

17

I.

Introduction

18

Plaintiff Cedric Chester Johnson (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis, initiated this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 6, 2016. This action

20

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment against Defendants Speakman, Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K. (“Defendants”).

22

II.

23

On December 28, 2016, following screening of the first amended complaint, the Court issued

24

an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this action upon

25

Defendants Speakman, Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K. (ECF No. 18). On January 24, 2017, the United

26

States Marshal filed returns of service unexecuted as to Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K. (ECF

27

No. 19).

28

Service by the United States Marshal

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:
1

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.

1
2
3
4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

6
7

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). A pro se litigant

8

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and

9

complaint. See, e.g., Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, delays or

10

failures to effectuate service attributable to the Marshal are “automatically good cause within the

11

meaning of Rule 4[m].’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other

12

grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (citation

13

omitted). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

14

information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the

15

unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to serve Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K with the

16
17

information provided by Plaintiff. However, the Marshal was informed that service could not be

18

accepted for Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K because Plaintiff needed to be “more specific” and

19

could re-attempt service once he “finds out who they are.” (ECF No. 19, pp. 1-3). Plaintiff therefore

20

has failed to provide accurate and sufficient information to identify Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs.

21

K for service of process. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with the necessary information

22

to identify Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K with greater specificity, then these defendants shall be

23

dismissed from this action, without prejudice. Under Rule 4(m), the court will provide Plaintiff with

24

the opportunity to show cause why Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K should not be dismissed from

25

the action at this time.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

Conclusion and Order

2

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause

4

why Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K should not be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff may

5

comply with this order by providing accurate and sufficient information for the Marshal to identify

6

Defendants Rocha, Jones and Mrs. K for service of process; and

7
8

2.

The failure to respond to this order will result in the dismissal of Defendants Rocha,

Jones and Mrs. K from this action.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 26, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3