Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573-3/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

THORNELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMBROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00573-DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

DEFENDANT FELIX VASQUEZ SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO

EFFECT SERVICE

(Doc. 14)

Plaintiff Thornell Brown (“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 complaint, filed March 30, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On November 13, 2009, the Court issued an

order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on ten defendants. (Doc. 13.) 

The Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendant Felix Vasquez and on February 1, 2010, the

Marshal returned the USM-285 form to the Court. (Doc. 14.) 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro

1

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 22 Filed 04/05/10 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

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, 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. 

In this instance, the address provided by Plaintiff for Defendant Felix Vasquez is no longer

accurate, as Defendant Felix Vasquez is no longer employed at the facility, Kern Valley State

Prison. (Doc. 14.) If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with a current address at which

Defendant Felix Vasquez can be located, the defendant shall be dismissed from the action, without

prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause

why Defendant Felix Vasquez 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 why Defendants Felix Vasquez should not be dismissed from this action; and

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

dismissal of Defendant Felix Vasquez from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 3, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 22 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 2