Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HEDGEPATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC 

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY DEFENDANT VASQUEZ SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO

EFFECT SERVICE

(Doc. 56.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

 Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

January 18, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, filed

by Plaintiff on February 12, 2009, against defendants CMO A. Youssef, CMO S. Lopez, Dr. J.

Akanno, Dr. S. Qamar, Dr. Vasquez, RN II M. Ali, and RN II M. Wright-Pearson for deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc.

26.) 

II. SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

On November 2, 2009, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to

initiate service of process upon defendants in this action. (Doc. 36.) All of the defendants were

successfully served except Dr. S. Qamar, Dr. Vasquez, and RN II M. Wright-Pearson. 

1

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 87 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants Qamar and Wright-Pearson

On April 19, 2010, the Marshal filed returns of service unexecuted as to defendants Dr. S.

Qamar and Senior R.N. II M. Wright-Pearson. (Doc. 56.) Based on the information set forth in

the returned USM-285 forms, the Court cannot make a finding that Plaintiff has not provided

sufficient information to locate these two defendants. Therefore, by separate order, the Marshal

shall be directed to initiate re-service upon defendants Qamar and Wright-Pearson by contacting

the Legal Affairs Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for

assistance.

Defendant Dr. Vasquez

On April 19, 2010, the Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to defendant Dr. 

Vasquez. (Doc. 56.) 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within

120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as

to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time;

provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

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

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated

prose plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of

the summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for

failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his

duties.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912

F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472

(1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the

defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker, 14

F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However,

where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to

2

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 87 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved

defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

In this instance, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify defendant Dr.

Vasquez and locate the defendant for service of process. (Doc. 56.) If Plaintiff is unable to

provide the Marshal with additional information, defendant Dr. Vasquez shall be dismissed from

the action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the 1

opportunity to show cause why defendant Dr. Vasquez should not be dismissed from the action

at this time.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show

cause why defendant Dr. Vasquez should not be dismissed from this action; and

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the

dismissal of defendant Dr. Vasquez from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 14, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

If Plaintiff is unable to provide a full name, he must provide alternate information – such as a partial name,

1

title, gender, work assignment, work schedule, etc. – sufficient for the Marshal or the CDCR to identify the

defendant for service. Because Vasquez is a common name, there may be more than one Dr. Vasquez employed by

the CDCR as a prison physician. If Plaintiff is unable to provide a current address for this defendant, he must

provide any other available information to enable the Marshal to locate the defendant.

3

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 87 Filed 09/14/10 Page 3 of 3