Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02548-4/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LONG,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-2548 TLN DAD P

vs.

D. MINER et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

rights action. 

On August 27, 2012, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve

plaintiff’s amended complaint on defendants Martinez, McClean, Miner, Williams, and Housley. 

Service has been effected on defendants Martinez, McClean, Miner, and Williams. However, the

Marshal was unable to effect service on defendant Housley. On October 25, 2012, the court

advised plaintiff that if he wished to proceed with his claims against defendant Housley, he

would be required to provide additional information to the court that would enable the United

States Marshal to serve this defendant. The court instructed plaintiff to promptly seek such

information through any means available to him. The court also ordered plaintiff to submit

within sixty days the documents necessary to effect service on defendant Housley. Although

1

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 35 Filed 08/12/13 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 submitted the necessary service documents, once again, based on the information

plaintiff provided to the court the Marshal was unable to effect service on defendant Housley.

Under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned finds that plaintiff cannot

show good cause for the failure to effect service on defendant Housley. Plaintiff has had more

than sufficient time to provide the court with the additional information necessary to enable the

United States Marshal to serve this defendant. Accordingly, the court concludes that defendant

Housley should be dismissed from this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

defendant Housley be dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and

41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 9, 2013.

DAD:9

long2548.4m

2

Case 2:11-cv-02548-TLN-DAD Document 35 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 2