Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THORNELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMBROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00573-DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

DEFENDANT JOSE GONZALES SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO

EFFECT SERVICE

(Doc. 16)

Plaintiff Thornell Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 30, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On November 13, 2009, the Court issued an

order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on ten defendants. (Doc. 13.) 

The Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendant Jose Gonzales and on February 4, 2010, the

Marshal returned the USM-285 form to the Court. (Doc. 16.) 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

If 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 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 in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro

1

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 24 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 2
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

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 v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 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. 

In this instance, the address provided by Plaintiff for Defendant Jose Gonzales is no longer

accurate or is insufficient, as Defendant Jose Gonzales is not employed at the facility, Kern Valley

State Prison, or there are too many Joses in the CDCR database. (Doc. 16.) . If Plaintiff is unable

to provide the Marshal with a current address at which Defendant Jose Gonzales can be located, the

defendant shall be dismissed from the action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court

will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why Defendant Jose Gonzales should not

be dismissed from the action at this time. 

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 Defendant Jose Gonzales should not be dismissed from this action; and

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

dismissal of Defendant Jose Gonzales from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 5, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 24 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 2