Warner v. Tileston et al

Filing 30

ORDER: NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO SERVE DEFENDANT A. WILLIAMS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EARL WARNER, Case No. 16-cv-04100-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO SERVE DEFENDANT A. WILLIAMS v. 9 10 C. TILESTON, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has 13 been ineffective on Defendant A. Williams. The Court has been informed that Defendant 14 Williams “does not work for CDCR/SVSP and [has] no forwarding address.” Dkt. 27 at 1. 15 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with 16 current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 17 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990). 18 While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, “a plaintiff may not remain 19 silent and do nothing to effectuate such service. At a minimum, a plaintiff should request service 20 upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has 21 knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the marshal is unable to 22 effectuate service and the plaintiff is so informed, the plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or 23 face dismissal of the claims regarding that defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 24 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if service of the summons and complaint is not made 25 upon a defendant in 90 days1 after the filing of the complaint, the action must be dismissed 26 without prejudice as to that defendant absent a showing of “good cause”); see also Walker, 14 27 1 28 The latest amendment of Rule 4(m), effective December 1, 2016, shortened the time period from 120 days to 90 days. 1 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under 2 Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient information to 3 serve official). 4 No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide 5 the Court with a current address for Defendant Williams. Plaintiff should review the federal 6 discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance about how to 7 determine the current address of this Defendant. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current address of Defendant Williams within the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against this Defendant will be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 28, 2017 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Court Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?