Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00071/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00071-4/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

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

At the time Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he was a pretrial 

detainee. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 16, 

2016. Local Rule 302.

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendant C. Chapa for 

sexual assault in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 23, 2016, the Court ordered the 

United States Marshal to service the summons and complaint on Defendant Chapa. However, the 

Marshal was not able to locate Defendant Chapa and service was returned un-executed on October 6, 

2016. 

///

///

///

MONICO J. QUIROGA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. CHAPA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00071-SAB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

[ECF No. 21]

Case 1:16-cv-00071-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a defendant is not served within 90 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.

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the 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). 

“[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 [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 and citation 

omitted), 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 (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. 

At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it in attempting to 

locate and serve Defendant Chapa.

1

 Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff shall be provided with an 

opportunity to show cause why Defendant Chapa 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, this action will be 

dismissed, without prejudice. 

///

///

///

///

 

1

The Marshal’s Office sought assistance from the County Counsel who indicated that C. Chapa longer 

works for Kern County. Counsel advised that Chapa cannot be located and the County will not 

represent her at this time. (ECF No. 21.) 

Case 1:16-cv-00071-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 10/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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

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

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00071-DAD-SAB Document 22 Filed 10/07/16 Page 3 of 3