Norsworthy v. Cate, et al
Filing
34
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/05/11 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 4(m) for failure to effect service of process. All pending motions be denied as moot; and the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close this file. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEFFREY BRYAN NORSWORTHY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
Defendant.
16
/
17
19
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RIVERS,
15
18
No. CIV S-09-2989-LKK-CMK-P
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
This action proceeds on the amended complaint (Doc. 18), filed on May 21, 2010.
20
Rivers is the only defendants named in the amended complaint. On July 23, 2010, the court
21
determined that service of the complaint was appropriate and, on August 5, 2008, plaintiff
22
submitted the paperwork necessary for service by the United States Marshal. On November 16,
23
2010, the United States Marshal was directed to effect service on defendant Rivers. On March
24
29, 2011, service of process was returned unexecuted with the following notations: “2-10-11 Per
25
facility – resigned in Dec. ‘09" and “3-21-11 Per CDC locator 4 c/o w/ L. name.” On April 14,
26
2011, plaintiff was directed to provide the court with additional information in order to serve
1
1
defendant Rivers. Plaintiff was advised that the failure to effect timely service could result in
2
dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff was directed
3
to comply within 60 days.
4
To date, plaintiff has not provided the court with any additional information.
5
Instead, plaintiff has filed two motions: (1) a motion for appointment of counsel for the purpose
6
of assisting him in locating defendant Rivers for service; and (2) a motion for judicial
7
intervention with respect to locating defendant Rivers. The court finds that it is not appropriate
8
to grant either request. Service of process was returned unexecuted because four current or
9
former correctional officers with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
10
share the last name “Rivers.” No amount of judicial intervention or professional legal assistance
11
from appointed counsel will aid plaintiff in more specifically identifying the person plaintiff
12
alleges to have violated his constitutional rights. It is incumbent on plaintiff, who was allegedly
13
wronged by a particular correctional officer, to be able to identify who that person was and to
14
provide that information in the operative pleading so as to put the correct person on notice that he
15
or she is a defendant in this case.
16
///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
2
1
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:
2
1.
3
This action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect timely service of process;
4
2.
All pending motions be denied as moot; and
5
3.
The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment of dismissal and
6
close this file.
7
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
8
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
9
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
10
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
11
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
12
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14
15
16
DATED: July 5, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?