Schoppe-Rico v. Rupert et al

Filing 28

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION NECESSARY TO LOCATE DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND RAMIREZ. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/15/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5

8

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION
NECESSARY TO LOCATE
DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND
RAMIREZ

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 11-04283 YGR (PR)

JOHN M. SCHOPPE-RICO,

v.
D. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

9

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court

11
12

issued an Order of Service, directing the United States Marshal to serve a summons and complaint

13

on Defendants.

14

Service has been ineffective on Defendants "C. Williams" and "Correctional Officer

15

Ramirez." The Court has been informed that the Litigation Coordinator at Pelican Bay State Prison

16

"need[s] more info" on these Defendants.

17

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), he is responsible for providing the Court

18

with current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v.

19

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.

20

1990).

21

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120 days from the filing

22

of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. When advised of a

23

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

24

apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge." Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir.

25

1987). If the marshal is unable to effectuate service through no fault of his own, e.g., because

26

Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information or because the defendant is not where Plaintiff

27

claims, and Plaintiff is informed, Plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or face dismissal. See

28

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be

1

dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient

2

information to serve official or that he requested that official be served); see also Del Raine v.

3

Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1029-31 (7th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to show good cause for failing to

4

timely effect service on defendant because plaintiff did not provide marshal with copy of amended

5

complaint until after more than 120 days after it was filed).

6
7
8

Service has been attempted by the United States Marshals Service and has failed with respect
to the aforementioned Defendants.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff
must provide the Court with the required information necessary to locate each of these Defendants,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

including: (1) the title and the full first name of Defendant Williams; and (2) the full first name of

11

Defendant Ramirez. Failure to do so shall result in the dismissal of all claims against these

12

Defendants. If Plaintiff provides the Court with aforementioned required information, service shall

13

again be attempted. If service fails a second time, all claims against these Defendants shall be

14

dismissed.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 15, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Schoppe-Rico4283.locateD-Williams&Ramirez.wpd

2