Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03780/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03780-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUE RISENHOOVER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03780-YGR (PR)

NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS DR. MARIA 

BOSTANJIAN AND DR. DEVINDER 

KUMAR

This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has 

been ineffective on Defendants Dr. Maria Bostanjian and Dr. Devinder Kumar. The Court has 

been informed Defendants Bostanjian and Kumar were not served because “Pelican Bay State 

Prison does not have authorization to accept service for [these] individuals.” Dkt. 14.

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with 

current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990). 

While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, or in this case, the procedure for 

requesting a defendant to waive the service requirement, “a plaintiff may not remain silent and do 

nothing to effectuate such service.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigation must “attempt to remedy 

any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Id. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 90 days from the filing of the complaint, it 

may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if 

service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of 

the complaint, the action must be dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant absent a 

showing of “good cause”); see also Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause 

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 15 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

why prison official should not dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he 

provided marshal with sufficient information to serve official).

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide 

the Court with a current address for Defendants Bostanjian and Kumar. Plaintiff should review 

the federal discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance 

about how to determine the current address of these Defendants.

If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current address of Defendants Bostanjian and 

Kumar within the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against these Defendants will be dismissed 

without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

March 9, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 15 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2