Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01240-8/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

TIMOTHY LEWIS JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O C. CARLOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01240-AWI-SMS P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED DUE TO

INABILITY TO LOCATE AND SERVE

DEFENDANTS 

(Docs. 24 and 25)

Plaintiff TimothyLewis Jones (“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 on September 23, 2005, against defendants Carlos and Willson

(“defendants”) for failing to protect plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 13.) On

May 25, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to provide information to facilitate service of process on

defendants by filling out and submitting to the court a USM-285 form and a summons for each

defendant to be served. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff submitted the required documents on June 13, 2006,

and on June 28, 2006, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on defendants.

(Docs. 15, 17.) However, the Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendants Carlos and

Willson, and on August 22, 2006, the Marshal returned the USM-285 forms and summonses to the

court. (Docs. 24, 25.)

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 26 Filed 11/13/06 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

2

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

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

order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[A]n

incarcerated pro 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 addresses provided by plaintiff for defendants is no apparently no longer

accurate. (Docs. 24, 25.) If plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with current addresses at

which defendants can be located, defendants shall be dismissed from the action, which will result

in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court will provide

plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.

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 this action should not be dismissed; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 26 Filed 11/13/06 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

3

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

recommendation that this action be dismissed, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 26 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3