Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00348/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00348-2/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

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.04\Sibley0348_dismiss4m.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMONE C. SIBLEY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. MEYER, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-00348 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against

defendant Correctional Officers M. Meyer (“Meyer”) and R. D. Wysinger

(“Wysinger”), SVSP employees, for use of excessive force. Plaintiff’s original

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

on March 8, 2005, and, with leave of the Court, a second amended complaint on

March 9, 2006. On June 17, 2007, the Court found that the second amended

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 20 Filed 10/31/07 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

Claims against Wysinger were dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. 

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.04\Sibley0348_dismiss4m.wpd 2

complaint, when liberally construed, stated a claim against Meyer.1 In that same

order, the Court directed the clerk to prepare the summons for service of the second

amended complaint upon Meyer, and the United States Marshal to effectuate such

service. The Clerk prepared the summons for service of Meyer at SVSP, where

plaintiff indicated he was located. The Marshal returned the summons unexecuted

because Meyer was not located at SVSP. 

In cases wherein 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). 

Here, plaintiff’s second amended complaint has been pending for over 120

days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On September 6, 2007, the Court ordered

plaintiff to either “effect service on defendant Meyer, or provide the Court with an

accurate current location such that the Marshal is able to effect service.” The Court

warned plaintiff that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of plaintiff’s

claims against Meyer without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s September 6, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 20 Filed 10/31/07 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

Order of Dismissal

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.04\Sibley0348_dismiss4m.wpd 3

Order. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to

locate and serve Meyer. Consequently, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED

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

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

October 30, 2007

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 20 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 3