Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00903/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00903-20/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

 Defendant Klingman was dismissed from the action by order issued on 1

November 29, 2007. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL AYALA, No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ANDREASEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action proceeds against the following eight defendants: Bick, Enriquez,

Grannis, Andreasen, Klingman, Sullwold, Sawker, and Gutierrez. Defendants Bick, Enriquez,

Grannis, Andreasen, and Klingman have appeared. Defendants Sullwold, Sawker, and 1

Gutierrez, however, have not been served. As to defendants Sullwold and Sawker, the United

Sates Marshal has indicated that more identifiers are needed to locate these individuals. As to

defendant Gutierrez, the United States Marshal has indicated that this defendant is no longer

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 81 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

It does not appear that plaintiff has availed himself of the discovery process in

2

order to ascertain additional information. 

2

employed at California State Prison – Solano. 

On January 3, 2007, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to provide

additional identifying information for these three defendants in order to allow the United States

Marshal to effect service of process. Plaintiff was advised of the various means at his disposal

for seeking such additional information and was cautioned that failure to provide information

sufficient to serve these defendants could result in an order dismissing them under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(m), which requires timely service of process. To date, plaintiff has not

provided any additional information. On October 1, 2007, the court directed plaintiff to show

cause why defendants Sullwold, Sawker, and Gutierrez should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule

4(m) for failure to effect timely service.

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on November 6, 2007. As to

plaintiff’s attempts to obtain additional information regarding unserved defendants, he states that

he sent formal written requests to state officials on December 27, 2006, and again on January 10,

2007. The Division of Adult Operations at the California Medical Facility responded to

plaintiff’s request on February 7, 2007. Plaintiff’s request was denied pursuant to California

Government Code § 6254(c), which protects the personnel and medical records of state

employees. The medical Board of California responded on February 16, 2007, that its licensing

records did not identify any “Dr. Sawker.” Plaintiff has not provided additional information

necessary to effect service on the three unserved defendants.

2

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants Sullwold,

Sawker, and Gutierrez be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure

to effect timely service.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 81 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 18, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 81 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3