Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01280/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01280-50/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

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C/O MARTINEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOE 

DEFENDANTS 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM 

THIS ACTION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND

I. BACKGROUND

George E. Jacobs IV ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims still remaining have 

been asserted against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) J. M. Martinez, C/O German, and 

C/O Northcutt, as well as unknown and unnamed Doe Defendants 3-4 and 6-10. 

II. SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court 

B on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff B 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).

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 167 Filed 10/15/15 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

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)(2). 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 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994).

Here, Plaintiff continues to assert claims against Doe Defendants 3-4 and 6-10 for their 

failure to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff. However, these defendants have not been 

served with process because Plaintiff has not sufficiently identified them to enable service by 

the U. S. Marshal. Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s order of March 28, 2007:

The Marshal cannot initiate service on unknown defendants. Plaintiff will need 

to seek leave to amend to substitute the true names of the Doe defendants once 

he learns who they are. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th 

Cir. 1999); Merritt v. Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 768 (9th Cir. 1989); see

Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, Inc., 91 F.R.D. 543, 547 (D. Nev. 1981).

(ECF No. 12 at fn.2.) 

This case has been pending for more than nine years, and the discovery phase was open 

for more than fourteen months. The case is now ready for trial, and Plaintiff has not 

sufficiently identified Doe Defendants 3, 4, 6, 7,8 , 9, or 10 for service of process, nor amended

the Complaint to name them. Therefore, the Court finds that Doe Defendants 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

and 10 should be dismissed from this action. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show 

cause why Doe Defendants 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should not be dismissed from this action for 

failure to serve process. Upon failure to do so, the Doe Defendants shall be dismissed.

III. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 Doe Defendants 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should not be dismissed 

from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m); and

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 167 Filed 10/15/15 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

2. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order as ordered above (1), the Court will 

dismiss Doe Defendants 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015 /s/ Erica P. Grosjean 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01280-AWI-EPG Document 167 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 3