(PC) Kirkland v. Smith et al

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to 1 Dismiss Defendant John Doe signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 01/06/2025. Referred to Judge Thurston; Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Deputy Clerk EF)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TREVON R. KIRKLAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D. SMITH, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00602-CDB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS DEFENDANT JOHN DOE
14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Trevon R. Kirkland is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983.

19

I.

20

The Court issued its First Screening Order on September 27, 2024. (Doc. 17.) In relevant

INTRODUCTION

21

part, it found Plaintiff stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against

22

Defendant John Doe. (Id. at 6-8.)

23
24
25

On October 1, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiff 90 Days Within Which
To Identify John Doe. (Doc. 18.)
Plaintiff's deadline to file a notice of substitution has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a

26

notice of substitution, identified defendant John Doe, or otherwise contacted the Court. As

27

Plaintiff has failed to identify defendant John Doe, the Court will recommend that defendant John

28

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

1

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

2

defendant John Doe within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

3

II.

4

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide as follows:

5

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.

6
7
8
9

DISCUSSION

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

10

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

11

order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]

12

prisoner ‘is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service’ ... as long as he or she ‘provide[s] the

13

necessary information to help effectuate service.’” Schrubb v. Lopez, 617 Fed. Appx. 832, 832

14

(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other

15

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

16

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

17

‘automatically good cause....’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United

18

States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by Sandin, 515 U.S. at

19

483-84). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and

20

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court's sua sponte

21

dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
Although Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis,1 the Court’s October 1, 2024,

22
23

order advised Plaintiff that the United States Marshal cannot serve Doe defendants, that Plaintiff

24

was required to identify John Doe “with enough information to locate the defendant for service of

25

process,” and that he would be provided an “’opportunity through discovery to identify the

26

unknown (Doe) defendants.’” (Doc. 18 at 2.) The Court also informed Plaintiff of the

27
28

1

Plaintiff paid the $402.00 filing fee for this action on June 5, 2023.

2

1

requirements for obtaining a subpoena duces tecum to learn the necessary identifying information

2

(id. at 2-3) and advised Plaintiff that if he had learned the identity of John Doe since filing the

3

complaint and did not require a subpoena, he should file a notice of substitution with the Court,

4

substituting the individual’s actual name for “John Doe #1” (id. at 3). Plaintiff was provided with

5

a 90-day deadline to file a notice of substitution identifying a named individual in place of

6

defendant John Doe. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file a notice to

7

substitute John Doe by the deadline, the Court would recommend the dismissal of John Doe

8

without prejudice. (Id.)

9

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

10

effect service of the summons and complaint on defendant John Doe within the time period

11

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

12

John Doe be dismissed from the action, without prejudice.2

13

III.

14

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a district

15

judge to this action.

16
17

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

Further, for the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS defendant John Doe be
DISMISSED without prejudice.

18

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

19

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

20

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written

21

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to

22

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without

23

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the

24

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the

25

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise

26

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15- page limitation may be

27
28

2

The Court notes this action continues to proceed against Defendants Bucato and Smith.

3

1

disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28

2

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result

3

in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:

January 6, 2025

___________________

_

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