Pinholster v. Wong et al

Filing 18

ORDER re 17 Letter,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 3/13/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 8 9 NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO SERVE DEFENDANTS WONG, DACANAY, GRUNDY AND COLEMAN Plaintiff, 6 7 No. C 09-01744 SBA (PR) SCOTT PINHOLSTER, v. R. S. WONG, et al., Defendants. / United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Service has been ineffective on Defendants at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), including: 11 former SQSP Warden R. S. Wong; former SQSP Associate Warden D. A. Dacanay; former SQSP 12 Facility Captain B. Grundy; and former SQSP Lieutenant D. Coleman. The Court has been 13 informed that "[a]ll of the above noted individuals have retired from State Service" and the litigation 14 coordinator at SQSP is "unable to accept service of any documents on their behalf for service." 15 (Feb. 23, 2012 Letter from SQSP Litigation Coordinator T. Rossetti at 1.) 16 While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, "a plaintiff may not remain 17 silent and do nothing to effectuate such service. At a minimum, a plaintiff should request service 18 upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has 19 knowledge." Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the marshal is unable to 20 effectuate service and the plaintiff is so informed, the plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or 21 face dismissal of the claims regarding that defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 22 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a 23 defendant in 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the action must be dismissed without 24 prejudice as to that defendant absent a showing of "good cause"); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14 25 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be 26 dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient 27 information to serve official). 28 1 No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide the Court 2 with a current addresses for Defendants Wong, Dacanay, Grundy and Coleman. Plaintiff should 3 review the federal discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance 4 about how to determine the current addresses of these Defendants. 5 If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current addresses of Defendants Wong, 6 Dacanay, Grundy and Coleman within the thirty-day deadline, all claims against these 7 Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 3/13/12 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 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 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Pinholster1744.locateDEFS.wpd 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 SCOTT PINHOLSTER, 5 Plaintiff, Case Number: CV09-01744 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 8 v. R S WONG et al, Defendant. / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on March 13, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 14 15 16 17 Scott Pinholster #C87601 San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 Dated: March 13, 2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Pinholster1744.locateDEFS.wpd 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?