Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

1:22-cv-01046-NODJ-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE 

WITHIN WHICH PLAINTIFF MAY

SUBMIT ADDITIONAL IDENTIFYING

INFORMATION REGARDING 

DEFENDANT FRYE

Plaintiff Roberto Johnson is a former county and current state inmate proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Frye. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On October 27, 2023, this Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate And 

Forwarding Service Documents To Plaintiff For Completion And Return. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff 

submitted service documents on January 10, 2024. (Doc. 21.) On that same date, the United 

States Marshals Service was directed to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant Frye. 

(Doc. 22.) The order identified Defendant Frye as follows: “Kern County Deputy Sheriff Frye, 

Badge No. 1572.” (Id, emphasis in original.) 

On March 26, 2024, the United States Marshals Service filed a USM-285 form indicating 

service on Defendant Frye could not be effected. (Doc. 24.) The United States Marshals Service 

was advised by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office that “Deputy Frye has not worke[d] there since 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/16/24 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

2021.” (Id.)1

On March 29, 2024, this Court issued its Order To Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Defendant 

Frye Should Not Be Dismissed From This Action For Failure To Provide Sufficient Information 

To Effect Service. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the OSC within 30 days. (Id. at 

3.) On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a written response to the OSC. (Doc. 26.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In his response to the OSC, Plaintiff states that he had a family friend perform an “online 

address search” to locate Defendant Frye, but the search was not successful. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff 

states he has been diligent in his search for Frye, and requests “leave to conduct early third party 

discovery to obtain information regarding Defendant Frye locations, and to serve subpoenas to 

Kern County Jail.” (Id. At 1.) Plaintiff asks the Court to direct the United States Marshal to 

contact the Kern County Jail “to attempt to locate a current address or last known address for 

Defendant Frye, and use reasonable efforts to effect service of Summons upon” Frye. (Id.) 

Plaintiff also requests the Court to “instruct Kern County Jail to advise whether it could locate an 

alternative address for Defendant (former Deputy) Frye.” (Id. at 2.) 

As Plaintiff was advised in the OSC, it is his obligation “to provide the Marshal with 

accurate and sufficient information to identify the defendant and to effect service of the summons 

and complaint.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994). (See Doc. 25 at 2.) 

Plaintiff was also advised he “may respond to [the OSC] by providing additional information.” 

(Id. at 3.) He was advised that “[h]elpful additional information might include, for example, first 

initial or name if known, a physical description (approximate age, height and weight, eye and hair 

color, any other distinguishing feature), possible current employment and/or residential 

addresses.” (Id. at 3, n.2.) Plaintiff’s response to the OSC offers none of the suggested helpful 

information. 

The United States Marshal has aided Plaintiff by attempting personal service on “Deputy 

Frye” at the “Kern County Jail” on March 25, 2024. (See Doc. 24.) However, based upon the 

information provided by Plaintiff service could not be completed. It is not the Marshal’s 

1 Apparently, no last known address for Deputy Frye was available and/or provided. 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/16/24 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

responsibility to locate Defendant Frye. See Howard v. Encinas, No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG 

(PC), 2020 WL 2489634, *2 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2020) (“As Plaintiff has failed to provide the 

Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of summons and complaint on 

defendant Leno and W. Hanna,” where the institution of confinement at the time of the incident 

reported neither “Leno” nor “W. Hanna” was employed at that institution, the Court 

recommended dismissal of those defendants) (recommendation adopted July 10, 2020, 2020 WL 

3893633); Heredia v. Lawrence, No. 17cv1560-LAB (LL), 2019 WL 1330316, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

Mar. 25, 2019) (plaintiff suggested burden of locating defendants should “be on the USMS or the 

Court” but it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the necessary information and the “USMS 

does its best to effect service as instructed, but it does not have the ability to track down every 

defendant named in a complaint if the information provided by the plaintiff is faulty”). Nor does 

that burden fall or extend to the Court. See, e.g., Heredia, 2019 WL 1330316, at *2; Harbridge v. 

Hall, Lee, and Tucker, No. 1:10-cv-00473-DAD-JLT (PC), 2017 WL 1821282, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 

May 5, 2017) (“Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit should ‘clearly carve out ... a new rule’ 

requiring district courts to order the U.S. Marshal to access the internet and public records to 

locate defendants who no longer work for the CDCR for purposes of service. Plaintiff has failed 

to come forward with any legal precedent for imposing such requirements on the U.S. Marshal 

and the court has found none. In addition, given the number of incarcerated plaintiffs who 

proceed pro se in this district, the court declines to impose such an overwhelming and additional 

burden on the U.S. Marshal”).

Before the Court will consider directing the Marshal to make further service of process 

efforts regarding Defendant Frye by contacting the Kern County Sheriff’s Office, Plaintiff will be 

directed to provide a physical description of Defendant Frye and any other identifying 

information available to him. As discussed in this Court’s First Screening Order, Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant Frye failed to protect Plaintiff by refusing to wear a mask during the COVID-19 

pandemic. (Doc. 10 at 3-7.) It is reasonable to infer from the allegations that Plaintiff should be 

able to provide a physical description of Defendant Frye as he seeks to hold Frye responsible for 

Frye’s actions before February 13, 2021, including placing “non-infected inmates into ‘a 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/16/24 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

quarantine which infected all inmates including Plaintiff in that jail.’” (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff will be directed to provide a physical description of Defendant Frye and any 

other available identifying information. Upon receipt of that information from Plaintiff, the Court 

will determine whether it is appropriate to order the United States Marshal to make additional 

efforts to effect service of process on Defendant Frye. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL provide 

a physical description of Defendant Frye, accompanied by any other identifying information 

available to Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order.

Plaintiff is advised the failure to respond to this order may result in a 

recommendation for the dismissal of any unidentified defendant from this action, due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), or a 

recommendation for the dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 4