Washington v. Caropreso et al

Filing 46

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH MORE INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANT A. MARTINEZ. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/22/12. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2012)

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
16

JESSE WASHINGTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
J. CAROPRESO and A. MARTINEZ,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________________)

No. C 11-3666 LHK (PR)
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH
MORE INFORMATION FOR
DEFENDANT A. MARTINEZ

17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal civil rights complaint on July

18

27, 2011. On September 21, 2011, the Court ordered the complaint to be served on Correctional

19

Officer J. Caropreso at California State Prison - Los Angeles, and Correctional Officer A.

20

Martinez at San Quentin State Prison. (Docket No. 7.) Service on Defendant A. Martinez was

21

insufficient because Defendant A. Martinez was not employed at San Quentin State Prison.

22

(Docket No. 18.) Plaintiff was ordered to either effectuate service on Defendant A. Martinez, or

23

provide the Court with his current location such that the U.S. Marshal would be able to

24

effectuate service. (Docket No. 25.) Plaintiff filed a response providing the Court with

25

additional addresses at which to locate Defendant A. Martinez. (Docket No. 30.) The Court

26

reissued summonses to Defendant A. Martinez. (Docket No. 33.) However, on June 1, 2012, the

27

summonses for Defendant A. Martinez were returned unexecuted. (Docket Nos. 40 and 41.)

28

Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on
Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide Court with More Info
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Washington366Info re Martinez.wpd

service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such

2

service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

3

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v.

4

Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint has been pending for

5

over 120 days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without

6

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

7

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

8

and serve Defendant A. Martinez, Plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his

9

claims against Defendant A. Martinez without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415,

10

1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with

12

sufficient information to effectuate service).

13

In the interest of justice, the Litigation Coordinator at Salinas Valley State Prison

14

(“SVSP”) is requested to provide more information about the employment status of Defendant

15

A. Martinez. To the extent there is more than one “A. Martinez” at SVSP, Plaintiff proffered

16

that Defendant A. Martinez was an Institution Security Unit Correction Officer in 2008. The

17

request shall inquire whether A. Martinez was a former employee of SVSP, and if he is currently

18

an employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). If he is

19

a former employee of SVSP, but still employed with CDCR, the Litigation Coordinator is

20

requested to provide a current employment address for Defendant A. Martinez. If he is a former

21

employee but no longer employed with CDCR, the Litigation Coordinator is requested to

22

provide a forwarding address, or notice that such information is not available. The Clerk shall

23

forward a copy of this order to the Litigation Coordinator at SVSP, who is requested to provide

24

the current employment status for Defendant A. Martinez, and any available forwarding address,

25

or notice that such information is not available, within twenty (20) days from the date this order

26

is filed.

27

Plaintiff must file notice and provide the Court with an accurate current location of

28

Defendant A. Martinez such that the Marshal is able to effect service. If Plaintiff fails to provide

Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide Court with More Info
2
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Washington366Info re Martinez.wpd

the Court with an accurate current location for Defendant A. Martinez within thirty (30) days of

2

the date this order is filed, Plaintiff's claims against this Defendant will be dismissed without

3

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

DATED: 6/22/12

LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

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

Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide Court with More Info
3
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Washington366Info re Martinez.wpd