Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04958/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04958-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL DAVID JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. THUDDY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04958-JST (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SERVE OR TO PROVIDE LOCATION 

OF UNSERVED DEFENDANTS; 

VACATING DEADLINE FOR FILING 

OF DISPOSITVE MOTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a second amended 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison medical staff at the Correctional Training 

Facility (“CTF”), where he was previously incarcerated. On February 24, 2016, the Court found 

that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs as against CTF 

Doctor Thuddy (“Dr. Thuddy”) and CTF Physician Assistant Crammer (“P.A. Crammer”) and 

issued an order of service. 

On March 31 2016, the summonses for defendants Dr. Thuddy and P.A. Crammer were 

returned unexecuted. The summons for Dr. Thuddy contained the following remark:

The Litigation Coordinator at CTF said that there isn’t anyone there by that name. There 

was a Dr. Chudy. If that is the correct spelling please reissue.

Dkt. No. 29. The summons for P.A. Crammer contained the following remark:

I have been unable to identify a Physician Asst. named Crammer.

Id. Accordingly, defendants have not been served.

Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on 

Case 3:14-cv-04958-JST Document 30 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such 

service;” rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant 

and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Absent a showing of “good cause,” a complaint pending for 

over 90 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve 

defendants Dr. Thuddy and P.A. Crammer. Consequently, plaintiff must remedy the situation or 

face dismissal of his claims without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed 

under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient 

information to effectuate service).

Accordingly, within 90 days of the February 16, 2016 second amended complaint, i.e., no 

later than May 16, 2016, plaintiff must effect service on defendants Dr. Thuddy and P.A. 

Crammer, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate defendants Dr. 

Thuddy and P.A. Crammer such that the Marshal is able to effect service. Failure to do so will 

result in dismissal of any unserved defendants without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s February 24, 2016 order is VACATED. The 

Court will issue a new briefing schedule for dispositive motions when all service issues have been 

resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04958-JST Document 30 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2