Grimes v. Brooks

Filing 19

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/22/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JOSEPH GRIMES, D72759,
Plaintiff(s),

10
11
12
13

vs.
NURSE BROOKS,
Defendant(s).

)
)
) No. C 17-0043 CRB (PR)
)
) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
)
)
)
)
)

14
15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical

16

Facility (CMF), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

17

that, while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), Nurse

18

Brooks delayed and/or interfered with his medical care.

19

On April 11, 2017, the court (Lloyd, M.J.) found that, liberally construed,

20

plaintiff’s allegations appeared to state a cognizable § 1983 claim for violation of

21

the Eighth Amendment against Brooks, and issued an order of service. But on

22

May 5, 2017, SVSP’s litigation coordinator returned the service documents with

23

a letter indicating that Nurse Brooks never worked at SVSP.

24

On May 6, 2017, the court (Lloyd, M.J.) directed plaintiff to file a notice

25

providing the court with current and accurate location information for Defendant

26

Brooks such that the United States Marshal is able to effect service within

27

twenty-eight (28) days, or face dismissal of his complaint without prejudice

28

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff instead

1

filed a motion requesting an extension of time to provide the court the requested

2

information to allow him time to review his medical records to obtain the

3

necessary information.

4

On June 13, 2017, the court (Lloyd, M.J.) granted plaintiff an extension of

5

time until July 13, 2017 to provide the court with current and accurate location

6

information for Defendant Brooks such that the Marshal is able to effect service,

7

or face dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff instead filed

8

a motion for a second extension of time until August 11, 2017.

9

On July 14, 2017, this action was reassigned to the undersigned and, on

10

July 26, 2017, the court granted plaintiff a second extension of time until August

11

11, 2017 to provide the court with current and accurate location information for

12

Defendant Brooks such that the Marshal is able to effect service, or face

13

dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).

14

But more than a week has passed since plaintiff’s August 11, 2017

15

deadline expired and he still has not provided the court with any location

16

information for Defendant Brooks. This action accordingly is DISMISSED

17

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).

18

The clerk is instructed to terminate all motions as moot and close the file.

19

SO ORDERED.

20

DATED:

21

August 22, 2017

CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.17\Grimes, J.17-0043.dismissal.wpd

27
28

2