Sturgis v. Brady et al

Filing 42

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION NECESSARY TO LOCATE DEFENDANTS LAFAYETTE AND MCDEVITT (Re 35 ). Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 8/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAMOS WAYNE STURGIS, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 SAN PABLO POLICE OFFICER ROBERT BRADY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 08-cv-05363-SBA (PR) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION NECESSARY TO LOCATE DEFENDANTS LAFAYETTE AND MCDEVITT (Dkt. 35) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court issued an Order serving the cognizable claims against Defendants. The Clerk of the Court mailed a packet -- containing a Notice of Lawsuit, a Request for Waiver of Service of Summons as well as the complaint -- to each Defendant at the San Pablo Police Department. However, the Court has been informed that Defendants Lafayette and McDevitt “are not and have never been San Pablo Police Department employees.” (Dkt. 35.) As such, service has been ineffective on these two Defendants. Although a plaintiff who is proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on the Court to serve the named defendants, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff's complaint has been pending for over 120 days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” his claims against Defendants Lafayette and McDevitt are subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Service has been 1 attempted and has failed with respect to Defendants Lafayette and McDevitt. As an 2 alternative to dismissal, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide additional information as to 3 these Defendants in order to effectuate service. 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of 5 this Order is filed, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with the required information necessary 6 to locate each of these Defendants, including their full names and addresses. Plaintiff 7 should review the federal discovery rules, i.e., Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure, for guidance about how to obtain the required information necessary to locate 9 these Defendants. Failure to do so shall result in the dismissal of all claims against these Defendants. If Plaintiff provides the Court with aforementioned required information, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 service shall again be attempted. If service fails a second time, all claims against these 12 Defendants shall be dismissed. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2014 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.08\Sturgis5363-SBA-4Mservice.docx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?