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)

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