Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00864/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00864-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO KEATON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0864 GEB CMK P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 6, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendant Dikeson. Process directed to defendant Dikeson was returned unserved

because "defendant is unable to be identified." Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status relieves him

of the responsibility of effecting service, but Plaintiff is still responsible for providing sufficient

information to serve the defendants. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994)

(abrogated on other grounds). Plaintiff has previously been ordered to provide additional

Case 2:03-cv-00864-GEB -CMK Document 53 Filed 02/23/06 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

Plaintiff’s returned summons listed only “Dikeson” and provided no address or other

1

identifying information. 

2

information to serve this defendant. (Docs. 30 and 43.) However, defendant has failed to do so.1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if service is not made on a

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court may, on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant. Fed. R.

Civ. P 4(m). More than 120 days have passed since defendant filed his amended complaint on

April 29, 2004. The court gave plaintiff the required notice in an order filed November 18,

2005. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his failure to provide adequate

information to serve defendant Dikeson. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant Dikeson be dismissed from

this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m). 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 22, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00864-GEB -CMK Document 53 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2