Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573-4/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

THORNELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMBROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00573-DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

DEFENDANT C. HAY SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE

INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT

SERVICE

(Doc. 15)

Plaintiff Thornell Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 30, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On November 13, 2009, the Court issued an

order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on ten defendants. (Doc. 13.) 

The Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendant C. Hay and on February 1, 2010, the Marshal

returned the USM-285 form to the Court. (Doc. 15.) 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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 orderthat 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).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro

1

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 23 Filed 04/05/10 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

se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the

summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure

to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.’” Walker

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the

prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to

effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United

States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the

Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint,

the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-

22. 

In this instance, the address provided byPlaintiff for Defendant C. Hay is no longer accurate,

as Defendant C. Hay is no longer employed at the facility, Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. 15.) 

There are also too manyC. Hays in the CDCR database. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal

with a current address at which Defendant C. Hay can be located, the defendant shall be dismissed

from the action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to show cause why Defendant C. Hay should not be dismissed from the action at this

time. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show

cause why Defendant C. Hay should not be dismissed from this action; and

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in

dismissal of Defendant C. Hay from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 3, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 23 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 2