Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628-7/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

KEVIN LEWIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAN QUINTO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00628-NODJ-CDB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 37)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS DEFENDANT 

HERNANDEZ FROM THIS ACTION 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS 

14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kevin Lewis, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on an Eighth 

Amendment claim for use of excessive force against Defendants Alan Quinto, Bobby Gilbert, 

Shannon Brown, and John Hernandez, Correctional Officers (“COs”) at North Kern State Prison;

and a claim for failure to protect against COs Brown and Hernandez. (Doc. 20.)

On October 27, 2023, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 21.) 

Specifically, service was to be effected on Defendants Quinto, Gilbert, Brown, and Hernandez. 

(Id. at 2.) 

On December 12, 2023, and again on January 8, 2024, the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) advised the Court service would not be waived as to 

Defendant Hernandez, indicating it was unable to identify a “John Hernandez.” (Docs. 28, 32.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 43 Filed 02/29/24 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

CDCR was unable to provide a last known address or any other information concerning this 

individual.

On January 16, 2024, the Court entered an order to show cause (OSC) requiring Plaintiff 

to show cause, within 30 days, why Defendant Hernandez should not be dismissed from the 

action, or to provide additional information to assist the United States Marshal in locating 

Defendant Hernandez for service of process. (Doc. 37 at 3-4.) Plaintiff was cautioned that a 

failure to respond to the OSC would result in dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). (Id. at 4.) 

More than 30 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the OSC or to 

provide additional information to assist the United States Marshal in effecting service of process 

on Defendant Hernandez.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

If a defendant is not served within 90 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Absent a showing of good cause, courts have discretion under Rule 4(m) to 

extend the time for service or to dismiss the action without prejudice. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 

507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001). A prisoner plaintiff is required to provide sufficient information to 

effectuate service of process on a defendant by the United States Marshal. Walker v. Sumner, 14 

F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated in part on other grounds in Sandin v. Connor, 515 

U.S. 472 (1995). 

Service of Plaintiff’s complaint was authorized on October 23, 2023 (Doc. 21) and 

summonses were issued that same day. (Doc. 22.) All Defendants besides Defendant Hernandez 

have filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 40.). On December 12, 2023, and again on 

January 8, 2024, CDCR advised the Court service would not be waived as to Defendant 

Hernandez, indicating it was unable to identify a “John Hernandez.” (Docs. 28, 32.) CDCR was 

unable to provide a last known address or any other information concerning this individual.

As stated above, Plaintiff has failed to time file a written response to the OSC or to 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 43 Filed 02/29/24 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

provide additional information concerning Defendant Hernandez to allow for service of process 

by the United States Marshal. It follows that, by his failure to comply with the Court’s OSC,

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause concerning his failure to provide the United States 

Marshal with sufficient information to effect service of process on Defendant Hernandez. Walker, 

14 F.3d at 1421-22.

CONCLUSION, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the OSC issued January 16, 2024 (Doc. 37) 

is DISCHARGED.

Further, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant 

John Hernandez be DISMISSED, without prejudice, from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to 

effectuate service of process.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 

this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 

Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The 

document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 

rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 43 Filed 02/29/24 Page 3 of 3