Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512-26/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 Will Moses Palmer, III (“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 now proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Lopez, Jordnt, and Bardonnex for retaliation 

and denial of access to the courts. (ECF Nos. 111, 112.)

On July 23, 2012, following screening of the second amended complaint, the Court issued an 

order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this action upon Defendant 

Lopez. (ECF No. 114.) Subsequently, the United State Marshal’s office reported that they did not 

receive service documents for Defendant Lopez. Accordingly, on November 29, 2012, the Court 

submitted service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return. (ECF No. 116.) Plaintiff returned 

the service documents for Defendant Lopez on January 7, 2013. (ECF No. 117.) On the same date, the 

Court again issued an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this 

action upon Defendant Lopez. (ECF No. 118.) On May 16, 2013, the Marshal filed a return of service 

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JORDNT, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

LOPEZ FOR FAILURE TO EFFECTUTATE

SERVICE OF PROCESS

(ECF No. 111, 112, 120)

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 121 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 3
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

unexecuted as to Defendant Lopez. (ECF No. 119.) On May 20, 2013, the Court issued an order to 

show cause why Defendant Lopez should not be dismissed from this action for failure to effectuate 

service. Plaintiff was ordered to respond within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order. 

(ECF No. 120.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise 

responded to the Court’s order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

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 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 Marshal, upon order of the 

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 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 the duties required of 

each of them . . . .” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). “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 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on 

other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). 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 defendant is 

appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

In this case, Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information to identify Defendant Lopez and 

to locate this defendant for service of process. This action has been pending since April 28, 2006, and 

Plaintiff was first ordered to submit documents to effect service on Defendant Lopez on June 27, 2012. 

Subsequently, the Court ordered Plaintiff to re-submit documents to effect service on Defendant Lopez 

on November 29, 2012. The Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted for Defendant Lopez on 

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 121 Filed 07/05/13 Page 2 of 3
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

May 16, 2013, indicating that there was insufficient information to identify/locate Defendant Lopez. 

Accordingly, in compliance with Rule 4(m), Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to show cause 

why Defendant Lopez should not be dismissed from this action and to provide additional information 

to identify Defendant Lopez. Plaintiff failed to respond to this Court’s order and failed to show cause 

why Defendant Lopez should not be dismissed from this action. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed against 

Defendant Lopez, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of the summons and 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 121 Filed 07/05/13 Page 3 of 3