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)

Download PDF
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. ยง 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

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?