Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00551-1/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 Michael Purtue is appearing 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 second amended complaint against Defendants Rizer, 

Eberle, Meyers, J. Emerson, R. Sanchez, J. Chavez, B. Mello, L. Lundy, and D. Magallance on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim. The Marshal was not able to locate Defendants J. 

Chavez, Meyers, and S. Rizer and service was returned un-executed on September 22, 2016. 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

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.

MICHAEL PURTUE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

B. KEARNES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-SAB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS 

J. CHAVEZ, MEYERS, AND S. RIZER SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

[ECF No. 12]

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); 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 [he] 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) (internal quotations and citation 

omitted), 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 (internal quotations and 

citation omitted). 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. 

At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it in attempting to 

locate and serve Defendants J. Chavez, Meyers, and S. Rizer. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. With 

regard to Defendants J. Chavez and S. Rizer, the Marshal was informed that these Defendants do not 

work at Pelican Bay State Prison. (ECF No. 12.) With regard to Defendant Meyer, it was noted that 

Pelican Bay State Prison has three Meyers employed with the facility and further clarification is 

needed to determine who the proper identity of Defendant Meyer. (Id.) Plaintiff shall be provided 

with an opportunity to show cause why Defendants J. Chavez, Meyers, and S. Rizer should not be 

dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to 

show cause, Defendants J. Chavez, Meyers, and S. Rizer shall be dismissed from this action.

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 Hayes should not be dismissed from this action; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 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. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the 

dismissal of Defendants J. Chavez, Meyers, and S. Rizer from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3