Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABRAHAM ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. COFFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-6464-REC-SMS-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT G. WILSON

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS

ACTION BASED ON FAILURE TO FURNISH

INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY

WILSON

(Doc. 16)

Plaintiff Abraham Romero (“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 amended complaint, filed May 19, 2004, against defendants Baptiste, Coffee, Samms, and

Wilson under section 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and

under California law for assault and battery. (Doc. 12.)

On November 4, 2004, the court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to

initiate service of the summons and amended complaint on defendants Baptiste, Coffee, Samms, and

Wilson. (Doc. 14.) The summons and USM-285 form for defendant G. Wilson were returned to the

court by the Marshal on January 31, 2005, with a letter from the Litigation Office stating that staff

were unable to identify a G. Wilson. (Doc. 16.) Defendants Baptiste, Coffee, and Samms

subsequently signed waivers of service and filed a motion to dismiss. (Docs. 20-26.) Although

defendant Wilson also purported to join in the motion, the court was notified via defendants’ answer

that the inclusion of Wilson in the caption was a mistake and Wilson was not represented by the

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 35 Filed 11/23/05 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

2

Attorney General’s Office. (Doc. 34.) In light of the documents returned to the court on January 31,

2005, it is clear that defendant G. Wilson neither waived service nor was personally served.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

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

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon

order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[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 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 Marshal was notified by the litigation coordinator that although there are

two officers named J. Wilson at CSATF, there is no G. Wilson. If plaintiff is unable to provide the

court with further identifying information on defendant Wilson, this 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 Wilson should not be dismissed from the action at this

time. 

///

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 35 Filed 11/23/05 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

3

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 Wilson 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 a

recommendation that defendant Wilson be dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 35 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3