Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00462-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVIN TREVONE LAMAR, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONN and TOON,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00462-HBK (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

MARCH 8, 2024 DEADLINE

On January 5, 2024, the Court found service of Plaintiff’s Complaint appropriate as to 

Defendants Sonn and Toon and directed Plaintiff to complete service documents and return them 

to the Court within 30 days. (See Doc. No. 14). The Court warned Plaintiff that “[t]he failure to 

comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 5). To date, Plaintiff 

has not returned the service documents and the time to do so has expired.

“If a defendant is not served within 90 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). 

A “pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for 

service of the summons and complaint” after “having provided the necessary information to help 

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 15 Filed 02/20/24 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

2

effectuate service” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 4. Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 

(9th Cir. 1990); accord, Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated in part 

on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)).

When service cannot be accomplished due to the pro se plaintiff's failure to submit the 

required information, and the plaintiff fails to remedy the situation after being put on notice, 

dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (holding that prisoner 

failed to show cause why his claims against prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 

4(m) when prisoner failed to show “he provided the marshal with sufficient information to serve 

[the defendant]”).

Because Plaintiff has failed to submit the documents, Plaintiff is directed to show good 

cause why the defendants should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) and/or why the Court should

not dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and comply with the Court’s 

January 5, 2024 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. No later than March 8, 2024, Plaintiff shall either return completed the service 

documents previously provided by the Court; or, show good cause why the Defendants should not 

be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and/or why this case should not be 

dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and/or Local Rule 110 for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

this action and comply with a Court Order.

2. Plaintiff is further advised, that if he fails to timely respond to this Order, the 

undersigned will recommend the district court dismiss this action.

Dated: February 20, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00462-HBK Document 15 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 2