Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01240-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LEWIS JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O C. CARLOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01240-AWI-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

4(M) 

(Doc. 26)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Timothy Lewis Jones (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s complaint, filed on September 23, 2005, against defendants Carlos and Willson

(“defendants”) for failing to protect plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 13.) On

May 25, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to provide information to facilitate service of process on

defendants by filling out and submitting to the court a USM-285 form and a summons for each

defendant to be served. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff submitted the required documents on June 13, 2006,

and on June 28, 2006, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on defendants.

(Docs. 15, 17.) However, the Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendants Carlos and

Willson, and on August 22, 2006, the Marshal returned the USM-285 forms and summonses to the

court. (Docs. 24, 25.)

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 01/24/07 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

2

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, a United States Marshal, upon

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

incarcerated pro se 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 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, the addresses provided by plaintiff for defendants is no apparently no longer

accurate. (Docs. 24, 25.) On November 13, 2006, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to

show cause within thirty days why this action should not be dismissed, and warning plaintiff that the

failure to respond to the order or the failure to show cause would result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed, without prejudice. (Doc. 26.) More than thirty days have passed and

plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the order. Accordingly, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 01/24/07 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

3

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 3