Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02631/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02631-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER MCKENZIE, Civil No. 09-2631-H(WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

DIRECTING CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

TO SUPPLY PLAINTIFF WITH

DEFENDANT JUDD’S CURRENT

ADDRESS; AND

(2) GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT

JUDD PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.

4(m)

[Doc. No. 6]

v.

R. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

On November 19, 2009, Alexander McKenzie (“Plaintiff’), a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at the California State Prison in Coalinga, California, and proceeding pro se, filed

a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that officials

at Donovan State Prison were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. On December 21,

2009, the Court found that the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint were sufficient to survive the

initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and directed the United

States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to effect service on Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:09-cv-02631-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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

§ 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). See Order Directing Service, McKenzie v. Hernandez, et

al., Civil Case No.09-2631-H(WVG) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2008) [Doc No. 3]. 

On the following day, the Clerk issued a summons and prepared an “IFP package,”

including certified copies of Plaintiff’s Complaint, a U.S. Marshal Form 285 (“USMS Form

285”) for each Defendant named in the Complaint, and a copy of the Court’s Order granting

Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. See Puett v. Blandford, 895 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1990) (“An

incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

for service of summons and complaint.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(a), (c)(3).

A summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Judd [Doc. No 5]. According to

the USMS, it was informed by the litigation coordinator at Donovan State Prison that Defendant

Judd was not employed at that institution. Therefore, Plaintiff now moves the Court for the

California Department of Corrections to provide him with Defendant Judd’s current address. The

California Department of Corrections has refused to give Plaintiff Defendant Judd’s current

address.

I. FED.R.CIV.P. 4 Service Rules

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

[i]f 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 order that 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 IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order of the

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

“‘[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,

Case 3:09-cv-02631-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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

912 F.2d at 275), abrogated on other grounds by 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; see also Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th

Cir. 1987) (noting that 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”). Here,

because Plaintiff has not yet been able to ascertain the proper location where Defendant Judd

may now be served, he must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims against

Defendant Judd. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (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, as long as Defendant Judd’s current and/or forwarding addresses can be

easily ascertained by reference to the CDCR’s personnel records, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on

the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendant Judd on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at

275. The Court hereby directs the Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case to contact

either the Litigation Coordinator at Donovan State Prison or the CDCR’s Legal Affairs Division,

if necessary, and provide Defendant’s Judd’s current and/or forwarding address within the

CDCR’s records or possession, and to forward that address to the USMS in a confidential

memorandum.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS the Deputy

Attorney General assigned to this case to provide the forwarding address for Defendant Judd to

the U.S. Marshal in a confidential memorandum indicating that the summons and complaint is

Case 3:09-cv-02631-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

to be delivered to that address. The Attorney General shall provide the U.S. Marshal with any

such information on or before March 24, 2010.

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of any available address from the Attorney General,

the Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and summons

upon Defendant Judd. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant to

the Court’s December 21, 2009 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and directing

service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) [Doc. No. 3]. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of: (1) the

Court’s December 21, 2009 Order [Doc. No. 3]; (2) this Order; (3) the Complaint, summons and

a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 to the Attorney General for purposes of re-attempting service

as to Defendant Judd. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02631-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 02/23/10 Page 4 of 4