Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794-10/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

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DILL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01794-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT VIETH SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez (“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 first amended complaint, filed July 22, 2008, against Defendants Dill, Harden, Sobbe,

Sandoval, Tyson, Chan, Vieth, and Brown for deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On August 26, 2009, the United States Marshal returned the

summons and USM-285 form for Defendant Vieth, unexecuted. The Marshal attempted to secure

a waiver of service but was unsuccessful in locating Defendant. The Litigation Coordinator

informed the Marshal that no one by that name was employed at Kern Valley State Prison. 

On March 19, 2010, a second order was issued directing the United States Marshal to contact

the Legal Affairs Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to attempt

service on Defendant Vieth using additional information provided by Plaintiff. On March 31, 2011,

the summons was returned unexecuted, stating that per the Office of Legal Affairs there was no

information regarding employment of anyone by the name of Vieth.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

1

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 59 Filed 04/22/11 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

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.

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)(3). “‘[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, in this action

Plaintiff has failed to provide information sufficient for the United States Marshal to identify the

person to be served.. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why

Defendant Vieth 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 whyDefendant Vieth should not be dismissed from the action at this time, with

prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m); and

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

Defendant Vieth being dismissed from this action, with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 59 Filed 04/22/11 Page 2 of 2