Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00569-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH R. HUSKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00569-SKO PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS AHLIN,

ROGERS, WAGONER, AND LINTZ SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO RULE

4(M)

(Docs. 11-14)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiff Kenneth R. Huskey, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2012. This action is proceeding

against Defendants Ahlin, Brown, Craig, Wagoner, Lintz, Rogers, and Young for failing to ensure

that Plaintiff’s medical needs were met, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. On April 2, 2013, the United States Marshal returned the summonses and USM-285

forms for Defendants Ahlin, Rogers, Wagoner, and Lintz unexecuted. (Docs. 11-14.) 1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) 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 orderthat service bemade 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.

///

Service is still outstanding as to Defendants Brown, Craig, and Young.

1

1

Case 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO Document 15 Filed 04/29/13 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

27

28

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States Marshal, upon

order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff “is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and

complaint and [he] 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) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted),

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the [plaintiff]

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 (internal quotations and citation

omitted). 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. 

Based on information provided by Coalinga State Hospital, Defendants Ahlin, Rogers,

Wagoner, and Lintz are no longer employees, and the Marshal’s Office appears to have exhausted

the avenues available to it in attempting to locate and serve them. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 

(Docs. 11-14.) Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendants Ahlin,

Rogers, Wagoner, and Lintz should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails

to respond to this order or responds but fails to show cause, Defendants Ahlin, Rogers, Wagoner,

and Lintz shall be dismissed from this action.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show

cause why Defendants Ahlin, Rogers, Wagoner, and Lintz should not be dismissed

from this action; and

///

///

///

///

///

2

Case 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO Document 15 Filed 04/29/13 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

27

28

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the

dismissal of Defendants Ahlin, Rogers, Wagoner, and Lintz from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO Document 15 Filed 04/29/13 Page 3 of 3