Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00042/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00042-9/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

Order Disming Unserved Defendant Norum

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\00042McElroy_4mdism-Norum.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARBOR MCELROY a/k/a LATWAHN

MCELROY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

W. L. MUNIZ, et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-00042 EJD (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING UNSERVED

DEFENDANT NORUM

On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a first

amended pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at

Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and Folsom State Prison (“FSP”) where he was

previously incarcerated. On September 10, 2015, the Court issued a partial order of

service upon SVSP Defendants. (Docket No. 19.) On September 25, 2015, Litigation

Coordinator G. Lopez sent a letter to the Court indicating that Defendant Norum was

deceased. (Docket No. 43.) On November 3, 2015, the Court informed Plaintiff that if he

did not file information that would allow the estate of deceased Defendant Norum to be

served within thirty days, the claims against Defendant Norum would be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . (See

Docket No. 74.) Defendant Norum’s estate has not been served.

Case 5:15-cv-00042-EJD Document 108 Filed 02/16/16 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

Order Disming Unserved Defendant Norum

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\00042McElroy_4mdism-Norum.wpd 2

Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may

rely on service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to

effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon

the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has

knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). On November 3, 

2015, Plaintiff was informed that he must provide information regarding Defendant

Norum’s estate within thirty days or the claims against Defendant Norum would be

dismissed. (Docket No. 74.) On December 7, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff an

additional thirty days to provide the necessary information. (Docket No. 86.) On

December 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion “to substitute in the proper party,” with

respect to Defendant Nurom. (Docket No. 100.) However, Plaintiff failed to attach the

document he stated contained the contact information for the estate. (Id.) Therefore, on

January 7, 2016, the Court again directed Plaintiff to file the contact information for the

proposed substitute party and renew the motion. (Docket No. 103.) To date, Plaintiff has

failed to provide the necessary information to serve the estate of Defendant Norum. 

Plaintiff’s complaint has been pending for over 90 days, and thus, absent a showing of

“good cause,” his claims against Defendant Norum are subject to dismissal without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant

Norum are DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk shall terminate this defendant and remove him from the Docket.

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

2/12/2016

Case 5:15-cv-00042-EJD Document 108 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2