Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00258/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00258-8/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

RAYMOND HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. DANIELSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00258-OWW-SKO PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFENDANTS SHU AND KIM SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

Plaintiff Raymond Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2009, the Court issued

an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants Shu, R. Richardson, and Dr. Kim with a

summons and a copy of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Doc. #23.) On September 21, 2009,

a summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendants Shu and Dr. Kim. (Doc. #26.) The U.S. 1

Marshal indicated that Dr. Shu and Dr. Kim could not be located. A letter from Pleasant Valley

State Prison indicated that there were no records of either person being employed at the institution.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) 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. This subdivision (m)

does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or

4(j)(1).

The Court has received a waiver of service from Defendant R. Richardson. (Doc. #30.)

1

1

Case 1:06-cv-00258-OWW -SKO Document 34 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 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

Defendants Shu and Kim have not been served within the 120 day deadline set forth in Rule

4(m). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and is entitled to have

process served by a U.S. Marshal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 

However, the inability to serve Defendants Shu and Kim appears to stem from Plaintiff’s failure to

provide sufficient information to locate Defendants and effect service. See Walker v. Sumner, 14

F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal under Rule 4 appropriate where Plaintiff fails to provide

U.S. Marshal with sufficient information to serve defendant) abrogated on other grounds by Sandin

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff is responsible for providing sufficient information to the

U.S. Marshal to effect service of process.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days

why Defendants Shu and Kim should not be dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m).2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Should Plaintiff have more current information on the whereabouts of the unserved Defendants, he should

2

provide it to the Court at this time.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00258-OWW -SKO Document 34 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2