Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01088-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. L. A. DELIO, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

CASE No. 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS

MARTHA AND SONIA SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE

SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS

(ECF No. 27)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Bernard Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed July 1, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF

No. 1.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15),

against Defendants Martha, Sonia, and T. Nguyen on Eighth Amendment claims. (ECF

No. 17.) 

On December 6, 2012, the Court issued its Order directing service upon

Defendants Martha, Sonia, and Nguyen by the U.S. Marshal, and imposed a service

deadline of April 8, 2013. (ECF No. 20.) The Marshal advises efforts to serve Defendant

Nguyen are ongoing. However, Defendant Martha, Health Care Manager at Kern Valley

State Prison, and Defendant Sonia, Health Care Manager at Kern Valley State Prison,

have not been located for service despite numerous attempts by the Marshal.

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/09/13 Page 1 of 3
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

Rule 4(m) provides that:

[i]f 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the U.S. Marshal,

upon order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro 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 [M]arshal’s failure to effect service is

‘automatically good cause [to extend the service deadline].’ ” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422,

quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 602 (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.

After waivers of service for Defendants Martha and Sonia were returned

unexecuted (ECF No. 27), the Marshal contacted the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and was informed that the “litigation

coordinator and special investigator with CDCR [were] unable to locate [Defendants

Martha and Sonia].” (Id.) The Marshal thereupon certified inability to locate these

Defendants and returned process unexecuted. (Id.) 

Based on this information, the Court finds that the avenues available to locate

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/09/13 Page 2 of 3
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

and serve Defendants Martha and Sonia have been exhausted. Walker, 14 F.3d at

1421-22. It appears that dismissal of Defendants Martha and Sonia from this action is

appropriate at this time based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Marshal with

information sufficient to effect timely service of the summons and complaint upon them.

However, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show cause why these

Defendants should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

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

1. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff

shall show cause why Defendants Martha and Sonia should not be

dismissed from this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide the U.S.

Marshal with information sufficient to effect timely service of the summons

and complaint; and

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

in a recommendation that Defendants Martha and Sonia be dismissed

from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-01088-LJO-MJS Document 28 Filed 05/09/13 Page 3 of 3