Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01882/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01882-4/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

CARLOS HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. HALL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01882-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT

(Docs. 31, 46)

and

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFENDANTS DILL AND L. BLUFORD

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS

ACTION

SHOW CAUSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Carlos Herrera (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested that the

Court enter a default against Defendants Dill and Bluford because Dill and Bluford have failed to

plead or otherwise defend in this action.

It appears that Dill and Bluford have failed to plead or otherwise defend this action because

they have not been served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c). On August 14, 2009, the

Court ordered the U.S. Marshall to serve Defendants Hall, Moonga, Zamora, Dill, Turella, Penner,

Lopez, Bluford, and Grannis with a summons and a copy of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 

(Doc. #13.) On October 23, 2009, the Court received unexecuted summonses as to Defendants Dill

and Bluford. (Docs. #19, 20.) The summonses indicate that the U.S. Marshal was unable to effect

service of process on Dill and Bluford because they could not be located using the information

1

Case 1:08-cv-01882-BAM Document 49 Filed 06/21/10 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

provided byPlaintiff. The summonses also indicated that the U.S. Marshal was unable to locate Dill

or Bluford using information from the “CDC Locator” database.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides:

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 order that 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. This subdivision (m)

does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or

4(j)(1).

Defendants Dill and Bluford have not been served within the 120-day deadline set forth in Rule

4(m). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and is entitled to have

process served by a U.S. Marshal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 

However, the inability to serve Defendants Dill and Bluford appears to stem from Plaintiff’s failure

to provide sufficient information to locate Defendants and effect service. See Walker v. Sumner,

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal under Rule 4 appropriate where Plaintiff fails to

provide U.S. Marshal with sufficient information to serve defendant) abrogated on other grounds by

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff is responsible for providing sufficient information

to the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests for entry of default are DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within thirty (30) days why Defendants Dill

and Bluford should not be dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Should Plaintiff have more current information on the whereabouts of Defendants Dill and Bluford, he

1

should provide it to the Court at this time.

2

Case 1:08-cv-01882-BAM Document 49 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2