Thompson v. Gomez et al

Filing 17

ORDER for Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Swanson, Romero, and M. Pomoa Should not be Dismissed Pursuant to Rule 4(M) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/07/2018. Show Cause Response due by 6/11/2018.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

MARK SHANE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

A. GOMEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00125-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY DEFENDANT SWANSON, ROMERO, AND
M. POMOA SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
[ECF No. 16]

19

Plaintiff Mark Shane Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants

21

A. Gomez, E. Weiss, Y. Sazo, C. Gray, J. Busby, Rodriguez, and J. Doe Nos 1 and 2 for excessive

22

force.

23

The United States Marshal was not able to locate or identify Defendant Rodriguez, and service

24

was returned un-executed on April 30, 2018. The following information was provided by the Marshal

25

in the remarks of the unexecuted summons: “The CDC is unable to identify a Rodriguez working at

26

the facility during the time specified.” (ECF No. 16) Accordingly, more information is needed to

27

identify and serve this Defendant.

28

///
1

1

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

2

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.

3
4
5
6

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

7

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n

8

incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for

9

service of the summons and complaint and [he] should not be penalized by having his action dismissed

10

for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.”

11

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted),

12

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has

13

furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is

14

automatically good cause. . . .” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

At this juncture, the United States Marshal’s office has exhausted the avenues available to it in

19

attempting to locate and serve Defendants Swanson, Romero and M. Pomoa. Plaintiff shall be

20

provided with an opportunity to show cause why these Defendants should not be dismissed. Fed. R.

21

Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff may comply with this order by providing further information sufficient to

22

identify these Defendants for service of process. If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or

23

responds but fails to show cause, these Defendants shall be dismissed from this action, without

24

prejudice.

25

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

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

27

why Defendants Swanson, Romero and M. Pomoa should not be dismissed from this action; and

28

///
2

2.

1
2

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the

dismissal of Defendants Swanson, Romero and M. Pomoa from this action.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

May 7, 2018
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
3