Hernandez et al v. Banta et al

Filing 12

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION
NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY AND
LOCATE DEFENDANTS COLEMAN,
BRANDON, AND BURT

Plaintiff,

6
7

vs.

8

N. BANTA, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 12-03162 YGR (PR)

RICHARD A. HERNANDEZ, JR.,

/

11
Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court

12
13
14

issued an Order of Service, directing the United States Marshal to serve a summons and complaint
on Defendants.
Service has been ineffective on Defendants Coleman, K. Brandon, and R. Burt at Pelican

15
16

Bay State Prison (PBSP). The Court has been informed that the United States Marshal was unable

17

to locate the aforementioned Defendants because: (1) Defendant Coleman's first name or initial is

18

needed; (2) Defendant R. Burt is "unknown" to the litigation coordinator at PBSP; and (3) Defendant

19

K. Brandon is "retired" and the summons sent to the forwarding address given by PBSP "was

20

returned by the post office [as] unable to locate and forward." (Docket Nos. 8, 9, 10.)
As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), he is responsible for providing the Court

21
22

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

23

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

24

1990).

25

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120

26

days from the filing of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service.

27

When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must "attempt to

28

remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge." Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107,

1

1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the marshal's office is unable to effectuate service through no fault of its

2

own, e.g., because Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information or because the defendant is not

3

where Plaintiff claims, and Plaintiff is informed, Plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or face

4

dismissal. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should

5

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

6

sufficient information to serve official or that he requested that official be served); see also Del

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order,

11

Plaintiff must provide the Court with the required information necessary to identify and locate each

12

of these Defendants, such as their first names, identification numbers, or current addresses. Failure

13

to do so shall result in the dismissal of all claims against these Defendants. If Plaintiff provides the

14

Court with aforementioned required information, service shall again be attempted. If service fails a

15

second time, all claims against these Defendants shall be dismissed.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

January 30, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Hernandez3162.locateDEFS.wpd

2