Gibbs v. Farley et al

Filing 14

CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 13 .ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Provide Current Address Necessary to Locate Defendant. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/20/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
No. C 13-02114 THE (PR)

KENNETH GIBBS,
9

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE CURRENT ADDRESS
NECESSARY TO LOCATE DEFENDANT

Plaintiff,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
v.
11
CARSON, et al.,
12
Defendants.

/

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

Plaintiff Kenneth Gibbs, a state prisoner at Pelican Bay
State Prison (PBSP), filed the present pro se prisoner complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On June 25, 2013, the Court issued an

"Order Serving Cognizable Claims,” ordering service on four
Defendants, including Defendant R. Grahams.

Doc. #7.

On July 17,

2013, the United States Marshal informed the Court that it could
not serve Defendant Grahams.

The process receipt and return filed

by the United States Marshal indicates that the PBSP Litigation
Coordinator said that more information is need to identify this
Defendant.

Doc. #11.
Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding

in forma pauperis (IFP) may rely on service by the Marshal, such
plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such
service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request

1

service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any

2

apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.”

3

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987).

Rochon v. Dawson,

4

Because Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information

5

to allow the Marshal to locate and serve the above-named Defendant,

6

Plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims

7

against this Defendant without prejudice.

8

F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show

9

cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m)

See Walker v. Sumner, 14

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with

11

sufficient information to effectuate service).

12

Civ. P. 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120 days from the

13

filing of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for

14

failure of service.

15

service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must "attempt to remedy

16

any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge."

17

F.2d at 1110.

18

an accurate and current address for Defendant Grahams such that the

19

Marshal is able to effect service.

Pursuant to Fed. R.

When advised of a problem accomplishing

Rochon, 828

Accordingly, Plaintiff must provide the Court with

20

CONCLUSION

21

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

22

1.

Plaintiff must provide the Court with an accurate and

23

current address for Defendant R. Grahams such that the Marshal is

24

able to effect service.

25

with an accurate and current address for this Defendant within

26

thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed, Plaintiff’s

If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court

27
28

2

1

claims against him will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to

2

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

2. If the requested information is provided to the Court,

4

service shall again be attempted.

5

the claims against Defendant Grahams shall be dismissed.

If service fails a second time,

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8

Dated: 08/20/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.13\Gibbs 13-2114 Locate Def.wpd

27
28

3