Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00447/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00447-5/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:10-CV-00447-OWW-DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

DEFENDANT A. SEINEZ SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE

INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT

SERVICE

(DOC. 24)

Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a California 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 amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010. Doc. 14. On November 23, 2010, the Court

issued an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on ten defendants. 

Doc. 20. The United States Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendant A. Seinez, and on

February 8, 2011, returned the USM-285 form and the summons unexecuted. Doc. 24.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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 orderthat 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).

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). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro

1

Case 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 05/12/11 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

27

28

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 in part on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 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 information provided by Plaintiff is insufficient. Doc. 22. Defendant

A. Seinez is not employed at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and is not in the CDC

locator. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with further information so that Defendant A.

Seinez can be located, the defendant shall be dismissed from the action, without prejudice. Pursuant

to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why Defendant A.

Seinez 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 Defendant A. Seinez should not be dismissed from this action; and

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

recommendation of dismissal of Defendant A. Seinez from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00447-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 2