Jorgenson v. Moore et al

Filing 98

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that the Four Unknown Correctional Officers be Dismissed from this Action, Without Prejudice, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(M) 90 ; Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/20/2019. Objections to F&R due within FOURTEEN (14) Days.(Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PAUL JORGENSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE FOUR
UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
4(M)

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

(ECF NO. 90)

16

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis in this action. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

21

(“SAC”), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is proceeding on

22

Plaintiff’s FTCA claim against the United States, his Eighth Amendment Bivens claim against

23

the four unknown correctional officers (“the Doe Defendants”), his state tort claims for medical

24

negligence against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical Center, and his state

25

tort claims for battery against Defendants Haak and Emanuel Medical Center. (ECF No. 21, p.

26

2; ECF No. 95, p. 3).

27
28

On March 27, 2019, the Court opened discovery on the issue of the identity of the Doe
Defendants. (ECF No. 70, pgs. 1-2). The Court gave Plaintiff until July 12, 2019, to identify
1

1

the Doe Defendants. (Id. at 2). The Court informed Plaintiff that “[t]o add named defendants

2

in place of Doe Defendants, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend the complaint or a

3

motion to substitute.” (Id.). Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to file a motion for leave to

4

amend or a motion to substitute by this deadline may result in dismissal of Doe Defendants.”

5

Plaintiff failed to identify the Doe Defendants by this deadline. However, in the

6

abundance of caution, on September 10, 2019, the Court gave Plaintiff an additional thirty days

7

to identify the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 90, p. 2). Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to file

8

a motion to substitute by this deadline may result in dismissal of Doe Defendants.” (Id.).

9

The extended deadline passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to substitute or a

10

motion for leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the Doe Defendants

11

be dismissed from the action, without prejudice.

12

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

13

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),

14

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.

15
16
17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

18

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States Marshal

19

(“the Marshal”), upon order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to

21

rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not be

22

penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or

23

the court clerk has failed to perform his duties….’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422

24

(9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (alterations in

25

original)), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as

26

the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s

27

failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause….’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting

28

Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a plaintiff
2

1

proceeding in forma pauperis fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

2

information to effect service of the summons and complaint, dismissal of the unserved

3

defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22

4

III.

ANALYSIS

5

As described above, despite discovery being opened on the issue of the identity of the

6

Doe Defendants and Plaintiff being given over four months to file a motion to substitute or a

7

motion for leave to amend the complaint to identify the Doe Defendants, Plaintiff failed to

8

identify the Doe Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Marshal with accurate

9

and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on the Doe

10

Defendants, and has failed to serve the Doe Defendants within the time period required by

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

12

Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the Doe Defendants be dismissed from the

13

action, without prejudice.

14

IV.

15

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Doe Defendants

16

be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to provide the

17

Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and

18

complaint on the Doe Defendants within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 4(m).

20

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

21

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

22

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

23

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

24

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be

25

served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

2

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir.

3

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 20, 2019

/s/
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