Shaw v. Thomas et al

Filing 19

ORDER: NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO SERVE DEFENDANTS DORFMAN AND GEORGE re 13 Letter. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LEWIS DOMINIC SHAW,

Case No. 17-cv-00462-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

L. THOMAS, et al.,

NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO
SERVE DEFENDANTS DORFMAN AND
GEORGE

Defendants.
8
9

This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has
been ineffective on Defendants Dorfman and C. George. The Court has been informed by the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prison as follows: (1) “no forwarding address” exists for Defendant Dorfman because he has

12

“moved to Fuji”; and (2) prison officials have been “unable to find a current or former employee

13

with the name C. George.” Dkt. 13.

14

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with

15

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

16

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990).

17

While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, “a plaintiff may not remain

18

silent and do nothing to effectuate such service. At a minimum, a plaintiff should request service

19

upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has

20

knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the marshal is unable to

21

effectuate service and the plaintiff is so informed, the plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or

22

face dismissal of the claims regarding that defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

23

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if service of the summons and complaint is not made

24

upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of the complaint, the action must be dismissed without

25

prejudice as to that defendant absent a showing of “good cause”); see also Walker, 14 F.3d at

26

1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule

27

4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient information to serve

28

official).

1

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide

2

the Court with current addresses for Defendants Dorfman and George. Plaintiff should review the

3

federal discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance about

4

how to determine the current address of these Defendants.

5

If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current addresses of Defendants Dorfman

6

and George within the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against these Defendants will be

7

dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2017

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Court Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2