Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01603/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01603-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEWAYNE McGEE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1603 GEB DAD P

vs.

O. DICKINSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2005, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the six

defendants in this action with the summons and second amended complaint. Service was

unexecuted for defendants Mangis and Diggins. On October 27, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff

to provide additional information to serve process on these two defendants. Before the court is

plaintiff’s December 19, 2005 motion to compel the litigation coordinator at High Desert State

Prison to disclose the residential addresses of defendants Mangis and Diggins. The court will

deny plaintiff’s motion. When the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and

second amended complaints on defendants, the Marshal was instructed to command all necessary

assistance from the California Department of Corrections to effect service. The Marshal has

informed the court that defendants Mangis and Diggins are no longer employed at High Desert

State Prison, and that the Department of Corrections was unable to locate these defendants. 

There is no evidence that these efforts were incomplete or faulty. Furthermore, plaintiff seeks a

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/05/06 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

2

court order without showing that he has attempted to conduct appropriate discovery as authorized

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On December 19, 2005, plaintiff requested an additional sixty days to complete

the documents for service on defendants Mangis and Diggins. The court will provide plaintiff

with an additional thirty days. Plaintiff is cautioned that the court is authorized to dismiss claims

against a defendant who has not been served with process within 120 days after the filing of the

complaint, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for failing to effect service. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 19, 2005 motion to compel is denied;

2. Plaintiff's December 19, 2005 application for an extension of time is granted in

part; and

3. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall submit the

completed notice of submission of documents, one summons, two USM-285 forms for

defendants Mangis and Diggins, and three copies of the June 30, 2005 second amended

complaint.

DATED: January 4, 2006.

DAD:mp/4

rich1603.36(3)

Case 2:04-cv-01603-GEB-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2