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)

Download PDF
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

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?