Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396-7/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

ROBERT LEE ROBINS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. ATCHUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-6396-REC-SMS-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS LEONARD

AND CROWELL SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FROM ACTION

(Docs. 68 and 77)

Plaintiff Robert Lee Robins, Jr. (“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 second amended complaint, filed on August 4, 2003. (Doc. 28.) On April 20, 2005, the

court ordered plaintiff to provide information to facilitate service of process on defendants by filling

out and submitting to the court a USM-285 form and a summons for each defendant to be served.

(Doc. 31.) Plaintiff submitted the required documents on May 2, 2005, and on June 20, 2005, the

court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on twenty-one defendants. (Docs. 32, 34.)

Sixteen of the twenty-one defendants subsequently made an appearance in this action, and the

Marshal has been directed to attempt re-service on three of the five unserved defendants. However,

the Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendants Leonard and Crowell, and based on the

information provided to the Marshal, there are no ground justifying attempted re-service at this time.

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

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 82 Filed 12/07/05 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

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 informed that defendant Leonard is deceased, and mail

directed to defendant Crowell, who is retired, at his last known address was returned as

undeliverable. (Docs. 68, 77.) Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court will provide plaintiff with the

opportunity to show cause why defendants Leonard and Crowell should not be dismissed from the

action at this time. 

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 defendants Leonard and Crowell should not be dismissed from this action;

and

///

///

///

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 82 Filed 12/07/05 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

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in a

recommendation that defendants Leonard and Crowell be dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 82 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 3