Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00551-2/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

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

Plaintiff Michael Purtue is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Rizer, 

Eberle, Meyers, J. Emerson, R. Sanchez, J. Chavez, B. Mello, L. Lundy, and D. Magallance on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim. The Marshal was not able to locate Defendants J. 

Chavez, Meyers, and S. Rizer and service was returned un-executed on September 22, 2016. 

On September 26, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause why Defendants Chavez, 

Meyers and Rizer should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 

13.) 

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on October 13, 2016. (ECF No. 14.) 

Although the Court’s September 26, 2016, order inadvertently stated that Defendants were attempted 

to be served at Pelican Bay State Prison, service was correctly attempted at California Correctional 

MICHAEL PURTUE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

B. KEARNES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

[ECF No. 13]

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 10/18/16 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

Institution in Tehachapi California. (ECF No. 12.) Nonetheless, based on the information in Plaintiff’s 

response to the order to show cause, the Court will discharge the order to show cause and in a separate 

order direct the United States Marshal to attempt re-service on Defendants. However, Plaintiff is 

advised that if the United States Marshal is again unable to locate these Defendants, they will be 

subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2