Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02887/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02887-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW OAKDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BLIESNER, et al., 

Defendants ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2887 MMC (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

UNSERVED DEFENDANT;

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket No. 19)

On July 15, 2005, plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 19, 2005, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff thereafter amended the complaint

and, on May 12, 2006, the Court ordered the United States Marshal (“Marshal”) to serve the

amended complaint upon defendants Chaplain Bliesner (“Bliesner”), Supervising

Correctional Cook M. Gomez (“Gomez”), Correctional Counselor Somera (“Somera”), and

Warden Kirkland (“Kirkland”) at Pelican Bay State Prison, where plaintiff alleged all said

defendants were located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (requiring, in cases wherein plaintiff

proceeds in forma pauperis, that “officers of the court shall issue and serve all process”); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (requiring court to appoint Marshal to effectuate service.) 

On June 27, 2006, defendants Bliesner, Gomez, and Kirkland jointly filed and

served upon plaintiff a request for an extension of time, in which they indicated defendant

Somera had not been served. Recently, on October 4, 2006, the Marshal returned the

Case 3:05-cv-02887-MMC Document 22 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Marshal returned the summons unexecuted as to all defendants. In light of the

appearances by Bliesner, Gomez and Kirkland on June 27, 2006, however, it appears service

in fact was effectuated upon those three defendants. 

2

summons unexecuted as to Somera.1 

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

If service and summons of a 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 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). As the complaint in this matter has been pending for over 120 days

and service upon Somera has not been effectuated, plaintiff must show cause why Somera

should not be dismissed from the action pursuant to Rule 4(m). See Walker v. Sumner, 14

F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding dismissal of defendant under former version of Rule

4(m) appropriate where incarcerated plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, had

failed to show he provided Marshal with sufficient information to serve defendant or to show

he had in fact requested that defendant be served); see also Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d

1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating incarcerated plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate [ ] service”). 

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall

either effectuate service upon defendant Somera, provide the Court with Somera's current

location, or otherwise show cause why the claims against said defendant should not be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, plaintiff, for a second time, has filed a request for appointment of

counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter

v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a

district court has the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). To date, plaintiff has been able to present his

claims, which do not appear to be particularly complex, in an adequate manner, and there are

no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff shall

Case 3:05-cv-02887-MMC Document 22 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

not file any further requests for appointment of counsel; should the circumstances of the case

materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s request sua sponte.

This order terminates Docket No. 19. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02887-MMC Document 22 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3