Schoppe-Rico v. Rupert et al
Filing
49
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 39 Motion re; denying 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File. All claims against Defendants Williams and Ramirez are Dismissed without Prejudice under Rule4(m). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
JOHN M. SCHOPPE-RICO,
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
D. LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
/
Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. The Court
issued an Order of Service, directing the United States Marshal to serve a summons and complaint
on Defendants. Defendants Williams and Ramirez have not been served in this action.
12
13
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS RELATING TO SERVICE
ISSUES; AND DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS RAMIREZ AND
WILLIAMS
v.
8
10
No. C 11-04283 YGR (PR)
As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), he is responsible for providing the Court
with current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v.
Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.
1990).
On February 15, 2012, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to provide the
information necessary to locate Defendants Williams and Ramirez within thirty days. Thirty days
have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the aforementioned required
information. Instead, on March 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion addressing the U.S. Marshal's
inability to serve Defendants Ramirez and Williams (docket no. 39). In his motion, Plaintiff states
that he has given the Court and the U.S. Marshal's Office sufficient information to effect service on
22
Defendants Williams and Ramirez. (Mar. 16, 2012 Mot. at 2.) He further states that, "Plaintiff
23
being a prisoner has done all within his reach." (Id.) On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff also filed a
24
motion entitled, "Motion for Extension of Time to Assist Marshalls [sic] in Service of Summons on
25
Defendant C/O S. Ramirez and O.S.S.-I. O/C Williams" (docket no. 40). However, the title of that
26
motion is misleading because Plaintiff requests more time "so the U.S. Marshalls [sic] and the Court
27
can effectuate service of summons and complaint upon Defendants C/O S. Ramirez and O.S.S.-I.
28
O/C Williams and to file a response to this Court Order Notice in which to explain the true facts at
1
issue of these Defendants['] full contact information upon good cause shown." (Mar. 19, 2012 Mot.
2
at 2.) The Court finds that no such extension is warranted. Given that the U.S. Marshal's Office has
3
not been able to locate Defendants Williams and Ramirez, and that Plaintiff has already claimed in
4
his March 16, 2012 motion to have exhausted all means available to him to locate these Defendants,
5
it would be futile to give him a further extension to respond to the Court's February 15, 2012 Order.
6
Therefore, Plaintiff's motions (docket nos. 39, 40) are DENIED.
7
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120 days from the filing
8
of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. When advised of a
9
problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must "attempt to remedy any
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge." Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir.
11
1987). If the marshal is unable to effectuate service through no fault of his own, e.g., because
12
Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information or because the defendant is not where Plaintiff
13
claims, and Plaintiff is informed, Plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or face dismissal. See
14
Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be
15
dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient
16
information to serve official or that he requested that official be served); see also Del Raine v.
17
Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1029-31 (7th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to show good cause for failing to
18
timely effect service on defendant because plaintiff did not provide marshal with copy of amended
19
complaint until after more than 120 days after it was filed). As mentioned above, service has been
20
attempted by the United States Marshal's Service and has failed with respect to Defendants Williams
21
and Ramirez. This action has been pending for over 120 days, and service upon these Defendants
22
has not been effectuated. Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the claims against these Defendants
23
should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Accordingly, all claims against
24
Defendants Williams and Ramirez are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
25
This Order terminates Docket nos. 39 and 40.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
DATED: April 27, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.11\Schoppe-Rico4283.DISRamirez&Williams.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?