Briones v. State of California et al

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 18 Motion extension of time; denying 18 Motion for Discovery (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2011)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

12
13
14
15

ANGIE MARIE BRIONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROCHA,
)
)
Defendant.
____________________________________)

No. C 10-3901 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME; DENYING REQUEST
FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT
LIMITED DISCOVERY

16
17

This pro se civil rights action was filed on August 31, 2010. Before the Court is

18

Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an extension of time to complete service, and motion for leave

19

of Court to propound limited discovery. On March 21, 2011, the Court informed Plaintiff that

20

the Marshal attempted service upon Defendant Rocha at the address given, however, Rocha was

21

no longer employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).

22

The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide sufficient information regarding Defendant Rocha’s

23

current location within thirty days, reminding Plaintiff that although she may rely on service by

24

the Marshal, she must provide sufficient information so that the Marshal may effect service, or

25

face dismissal of her complaint.

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s ex parte application requests an additional sixty days in which to provide such
information. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED.

Plaintiff also requests permission to conduct discovery in order to ascertain the

2

whereabouts of Defendant Rocha. It is unclear from whom Plaintiff wishes to seek discovery.

3

Thus far, the only party who has appeared in this suit is Plaintiff herself. However, the Court

4

assumes that Plaintiff wishes to seek information from the CDCR. The Court notes that the

5

CDCR has previously informed the Court that Defendant Rocha is no longer employed within

6

the CDCR, and the forwarding address it had for Defendant Rocha was no longer valid. (Docket

7

No. 15.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct discovery is DENIED.

8

Because Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate

9

and serve the Defendant, Plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims

10

against said Defendant without prejudice. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Accordingly,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

Plaintiff must provide the Court with sufficient information regarding Defendant Rocha’s

12

accurate and current location such that the Marshal is able to effect service upon him. Failure to

13

do so within sixty days of the date this order is filed will result in the dismissal of the claims

14

against Defendant Rocha, and thus dismissal of this action.

15

This order terminates docket no. 18.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

DATED:

4/25/11
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for an Extension of Time; Denying Request for Leave to Conduct Limited
Discovery
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Briones901eotlocateD.wpd 2