Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05608/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05608-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\8.29.2007\06-05608 Simmons5608_dismissal.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M.S. EVANS, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-05608 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 13, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated

at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) file a pro se civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden M.S. Evans, Sergeant J. Newton and Appeals

Coordinator Eloy Medina, all SVSP officials. Plaintiff paid the filing fee. 

By order filed May 3, 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Evans and Medina for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. The Court found cognizable plaintiff’s claim, liberally construed, against

defendant Newton for depriving plaintiff of his rights under the Equal Protection

Clause when he failed to provide plaintiff with adequate notice and time to prepare

Case 5:06-cv-05608-JW Document 21 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\8.29.2007\06-05608 Simmons5608_dismissal.wpd 2

for is Board of Prison Terms Hearing and falsified documents because of plaintiff’s

race. 

In the same order, the Court advised plaintiff that because plaintiff is not

proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, he may not rely on the United States

Marshal or the officers of the court for service. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Since the complaint was pending for over 120 days and service

upon defendants had not been effectuated, the Court warned plaintiff that the

complaint was subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which provides: 

If 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.

Accordingly, the Court gave plaintiff an additional thirty days from the order, i.e.,

until June 3, 2007, to either serve defendant Newton with the summons and

complaint in accordance with Rule 4(m) and provide the Court with proof of such

service or otherwise show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his

response filed May 23, 2007, plaintiff claims that defendant Newton was served

with a copy of the summons and complaint on September 21, 2006, by Correctional

Officer Matthew Yates in person. Plaintiff also alleges that the California Attorney

General was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on or about

September 11, 2006, by a friend who mailed the documents with the United States

Post Office. However, plaintiff has failed to provide proof of such service as

ordered by the Court. 

The complaint in this matter has been pending for over 120 days, and service

Case 5:06-cv-05608-JW Document 21 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order of Dismissal

N:\Pro - Se\8.29.2007\06-05608 Simmons5608_dismissal.wpd 3

upon defendants has not been effectuated. Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the

complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). See,

e.g., Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding dismissal of

defendant under former version of Rule 4(m) appropriate where incarcerated

plaintiff, proceeding pro se, failed to provide Marshal with sufficient information to

serve defendant or to show he had in fact requested that defendant be served). 

Accordingly, this complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule

4(m). 

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot. 

DATED: August 27, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-05608-JW Document 21 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 3