(PC) Roberson v. T. et al

Filing 83

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, Recommending that Doe Defendants be Dismissed from this Action, Without Prejudice, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(M) re 12 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/18/2022. Referred to Judge de Alba; Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CLARENCE LONELL ROBERSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:19-cv-01724-ADA-EPG (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT DOE
DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED FROM
THIS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 4(M)

v.
L.T., et al.,

14

Defendants.

(ECF No. 73)

15

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
Clarence Lonnell Roberson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case

21

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for failure to protect against two Doe

22

sergeants and a Doe lieutenant and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against

23

the two Doe sergeants, the Doe lieutenant, and two Doe correctional officers.1 (See ECF Nos.

24

13 & 18).

25

The Doe Defendants have not been served. On May 18, 2022, the Court authorized the

26
27
28

On April 29, 2022, District Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order adopting the Court’s findings and
recommendations recommending that defendants Gonzalez and K. Ga’s motion for summary judgment be granted.
(ECF No. 70).
1

1

1

issuance of a subpoena so that Plaintiff could request documents that will help him identify the

2

Doe Defendants and gave Plaintiff 120 days to file a motion to substitute named defendants in

3

place of the Doe Defendants, so that the Doe Defendants could be identified and served. (ECF

4

No. 73). The subpoena was served on July 6, 2022. (ECF No. 76).

5

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed what the Court construed, in part, as a motion to

6

compel the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison to appropriately respond to Plaintiff’s

7

subpoena. (ECF No. 77). On September 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to

8

compel in part. (ECF No. 81). The Court gave the Warden thirty days “to serve Plaintiff with

9

objections or produce the C-yard and C-8 assignment rosters at Kern Valley State Prison for the

10

following dates: August 7, 2019, August 8, 2019, August 9, 2019, August 10, 2019, and August

11

11, 2019.” (Id. at 3).
Both the Warden’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s subpoena and Plaintiff’s deadline

12
13

to file a motion to substitute have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to substitute or

14

asked for additional time to do so.

15

As Plaintiff has failed to identify the Doe Defendants, the Court will recommend that

16

the Doe Defendants be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s

17

failure to provide the Court and the United States Marshals Service (“the Marshal”) with

18

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

19

Defendants within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). As the

20

Doe Defendants are the only remaining defendants, the Court will also recommend that this

21

case be closed.

22

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

23

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

24

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.

25
26
27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of
2

1

the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “‘[A]n

2

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

3

for service of the summons and complaint and … should not be penalized by having his action

4

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

5

perform his duties….’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett

6

v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (alterations in original)), overruled on other

7

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

8

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

9

‘automatically good cause….’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902

10

F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis fails

11

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

12

summons and complaint, dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d

13

at 1421-22.

14

III.

15

ANALYSIS
The Court issued a subpoena so that Plaintiff could request documents that will help

16

him identify the Doe Defendants, the subpoena was served, and the Court required the Warden

17

to serve Plaintiff with objections or produce documents requested by Plaintiff. However, the

18

Warden’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s subpoena and Plaintiff’s deadline days to file a

19

motion to substitute have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to substitute to identify

20

the Doe Defendants or asked for additional time to do so.

21

As Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

22

information to effect service of the summons and complaint on Doe Defendants within the time

23

period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court will recommend that the

24

Doe Defendants be dismissed from the action, without prejudice. As the Doe Defendants are

25

the only remaining defendants, the Court will also recommend that this case be closed.

26

IV.

RECOMMENDATION

27

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

28

1. The Doe Defendants be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of
3

1

Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

2

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

3

within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and

4

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

5

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district

6

judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

7

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may

8

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

9

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

10

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v.

11

Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394

12

(9th Cir. 1991)).

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 18, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4