Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00914/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00914-7/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

NICOLAS MORAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. DUTRA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-0914-LJO-MJS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT 

DEDEE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED PURSUANT TO RULE 

4(M)

(ECF No. 32)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Nicolas Moran (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 7, 2011. The

action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Auten, 

Dedee, Dutra, and Ryan. 

Defendants Auten, Dutra, and Ryan waived service and entered appearances in 

the action. However, the Marshal was not able to locate Defendant Dedee and service 

was returned un-executed on July 29, 2013. 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 

made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Case 1:11-cv-00914-LJO-MJS Document 48 Filed 10/10/13 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

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

of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[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 [he] 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) (internal quotations and citation omitted), 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 (internal 

quotations and citation omitted). 

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. 

At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it to 

locate and serve Defendant Dedee.

1

 Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Accordingly, Plaintiff 

shall show cause why Defendant Dedee should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to show cause, 

Defendant Dedee shall be dismissed from the action.

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 Dedee 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 

/////

/////

/////

 

1 The Marshal’s Office sought assistance from the prison and the Office of Legal Affairs for the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and still could not locate Defendant Dedee. (ECF No. 32.) 

Case 1:11-cv-00914-LJO-MJS Document 48 Filed 10/10/13 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

the dismissal of Defendant Dedee from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

ci4d6

Case 1:11-cv-00914-LJO-MJS Document 48 Filed 10/10/13 Page 3 of 3