Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06537/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06537-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVA SCRUGGS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-06537-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT M. CATS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court issued an Order of Service. Defendant M. Cats has not been served in this action. 

In an Order dated September 18, 2014, Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with the 

required information necessary to locate Defendant Cats. Dkt. 28. Plaintiff was also informed 

that the failure to do so shall result in the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Cats. Id. at 2.

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), he is responsible for providing the 

Court with current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker 

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th 

Cir. 1990). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120 

days from the filing of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. 

When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must “attempt 

to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 

1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the Marshal is unable to effectuate service through no fault of his 

own, e.g., because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information, the plaintiff must seek to 

remedy the situation or face dismissal. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show 

cause why complaint against prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because 

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 81 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

prisoner did not prove that he provided Marshal with sufficient information to serve official or that 

he requested that official be served).

Here, the Clerk of the Court was directed to serve Defendant Cats at two different 

locations, first at Salinas Valley State Prison and then at the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation. Dkts. 23 at 4, 47 at 2. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Dkts. 27, 58. In an 

Order dated April 7, 2015, the Court informed Plaintiff that service had still been ineffective on 

Defendant Cats and granted Plaintiff a final extension of time to provide a current address for this 

Defendant—no later than April 30, 2015. Dkt. 80. Again, Plaintiff was warned that his failure to 

do so by the new deadline shall result in the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Cats. Id. at 

2. The April 30, 2015 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the 

aforementioned required information. 

This action has been pending for over 120 days, and service upon Defendant Cats has not 

been effectuated. Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the claims against Defendant Cats should 

not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Accordingly, all claims against 

Defendant Cats are DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

May 7, 2015

Case 4:12-cv-06537-YGR Document 81 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 2