Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190-2/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

ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

LINDA CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-4190 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SERVE DEFENDANT OR SHOW

CAUSE RE: LACK OF SERVICE

On September 10, 1999, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Training Facility (“CTF”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In reviewing the Second Amended Complaint in accordance

with 42 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court, on February 18, 2004, found plaintiff had stated a

cognizable due process claim for deprivation of property against defendants Gary A. Craft

(“Craft”) and J.A. Soares (“Soares”), but found plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim

that any defendant had violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. Thereafter, on

October 28, 2004, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process

claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appealed

both dismissals. In an opinion filed February 21, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed as to

plaintiff’s due process claim and remanded as to the right-to-access claim, with the following

findings:

Taylor alleged that the state court appointed an investigator to aid him in his

state habeas proceeding, that he had the permission of the warden for

confidential legal visits with the investigator, that prison personnel nevertheless

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 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

2

refused to mail his correspondence, that he grieved the refusal and prevailed

and that prison personnel still refused to mail his letter to the investigator. 

These allegations are sufficient to survive review under the screening provision

and require the government to respond. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

On May 25, 2006, the Court ordered defendants to file a dispositive motion regarding

the access-to-courts claim found cognizable by the Ninth Circuit. Defendants Soares and

Craft thereafter correctly pointed out that in plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the only

defendant alleged to be involved in the access-to-courts claim found cognizable by the Ninth

Circuit is defendant A. Griffin (“Griffin”), who had not yet been served. Accordingly, on

July 26, 2006, the Court dismissed defendants Soares and Craft; by that same order the Court

directed the Clerk to issue summons, and the United States Marshal to serve Griffin at the

CTF, where plaintiff indicated Griffin was located. (See Second Amended Complaint at 2.)

On September 7, 2006, the Marshals Service returned the summons unexecuted, stating they

were “unable to locate” Griffin at CTF because there was “no such individual by this name”

there. 

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

If 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 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 where the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the “officers

of the court shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court must appoint

the Marshal to effect service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), and the Marshal, upon order of the

court, must serve the summons and the complaint, see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422

(9th Cir. 1994). Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis

may rely on 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). 

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 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

Here, plaintiff's complaint has been pending for over 120 days, and thus is subject to

dismissal without prejudice against the unserved defendant, absent a showing of “good

cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Because plaintiff has not provided sufficient information

to allow the Marshal to locate and serve defendant Griffin, plaintiff must remedy the

situation or face dismissal. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner

failed to show good 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 thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff must

either himself effect service on defendant A. Griffin, or provide the Court with an accurate

current location such that the Marshal is able to effect such service. Plaintiff’s failure to do

so, as ordered below, will result in dismissal of this matter pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 26, 2006

________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 106 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 3