Briones v. State of California et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 20 Motion for CDCR to comply ; GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION OF TIME TO LOCATE DEFENDANT (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2011)

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 DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CDCR TO COMPLY;
GRANTING PLAINTIFF
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
LOCATE DEFENDANT

16
17

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

18

Plaintiff’s motion for the CDCR to comply with her request to provide Defendant Rocha’s full

19

name and present address so that he can be served. In general, the Court cannot compel

20

nonparties to provide plaintiffs with information but can order them to produce documents if

21

properly requested. Plaintiff may compel a person who is not a party to this action to produce

22

documents for inspection and copying pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

34(c), 45(a). However, according to a letter from the litigation coordinator at Salinas Valley

24

State Prison, dated February 24, 2011, a waiver of service of summons and complaint was

25

forwarded to Defendant Hector Rocha at his last known home address. (Doc. No. 15.) Delivery

26

was unsuccessful. (Id.) Further, the last known phone number for Rocha was no longer valid.

27

(Id.) The litigation coordinator indicated that there was no forwarding address available. (Id.)

28

Thus, it appears that the CDCR does not have the requested information. Plaintiff’s motion is
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for CDCR to Comply; Granting Plaintiff Extension of Time to Locate Defendant
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Briones901eot2.wpd

2

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

3

and serve Rocha, Plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of her claims against said

4

Rocha without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994),

5

overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The Court sua sponte

6

grants Plaintiff an extension of time to locate Rocha. Accordingly, Plaintiff must provide the

7

Court with sufficient information regarding Rocha’s accurate and current location such that the

8

Marshal is able to effect service upon him. Failure to do so within sixty days of the date this

9

order is filed will result in the dismissal of the claims against Defendant Rocha, and thus

10

dismissal of this action.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

This order terminates docket no. 20.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED:

7/29/11
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for CDCR to Comply; Granting Plaintiff Extension of Time to Locate Defendant
2
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Briones901eot2.wpd