(PC) Sekona v. Perez et al

Filing 60

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS MALDONADO AND R. PEREZ SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 09/14/2022.( Show Cause Response due within 30-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ETUATE SEKONA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. PEREZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:19-cv-00400-JLT-GSA-PC
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY DEFENDANTS MALDONADO AND R.
PEREZ SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FROM THIS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE
(ECF No. 59.)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Etuate Sekona (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

24

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed the

25

Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Third

26

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 13, 2021, against defendants Correctional

27

Officer (C/O) R. Perez, C/O L. Munoz, C/O C. Sims, and C/O Maldonado for failure to protect

28

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 39.)
1

1

On February 17, 2022, the court issued an order directing service upon Defendants in this

2

case. (ECF No. 44.) On September 8, 2022, the United States Marshal returned the summonses

3

unexecuted for defendants Maldonado and R. Perez. (ECF No. 59.) The Marshal indicated that

4

on March 22, 2022, the Litigation Coordinator at Kern Valley State Prison reported that there are

5

no correctional officers named R. Perez or Maldonado at that facility.

6

II.

SERVICE OF PROCESS -- RULE 4

7

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

8

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.

9
10
11

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

12

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

13

the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “An incarcerated

14

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

15

of the summons and complaint and . . . should not be penalized by having his action dismissed

16

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

17

[or her] duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v.

18

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor,

19

515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify

20

the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker,

21

14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)). However,

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Here, Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information for the Marshal to locate and serve

26

Defendants L. Perez and Maldonado with process. Therefore, the Court now issues an order for

27

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to timely effect

28

service upon Defendants L. Perez and Maldonado.
2

1

III.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 file

4

a written response to this order, showing cause why the court should not dismiss

5

defendants R. Perez and Maldonado from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to

6

timely serve process upon them; and

7

2.

8

The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the
dismissal of this action in its entirety.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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