Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00348/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00348-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service or Provide Location Information

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_locate.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS LARA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. POSNER, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-00348 JW (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON OR

PROVIDE COURT WITH LOCATION

INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on May 17, 2004, alleging he received inadequate medical care

from SVSP employees Dr. Posner, Dr. Haffner, Medical Technical Assistant J.

McAnutez, and Medical Technical Assistant Willis. On November 9, 2006, the

court found that the amended complaint, when liberally construed, stated aclaim

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 19 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

Claims against Wysinger were dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. 

Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service or Provide Location Information

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_locate.wpd 2

against Meyer.1 In that same order, the Court directed the clerk to prepare the

summons for service of the second amended complaint upon Meyer, and the United

States Marshal to effectuate such service. The Clerk prepared the summons for

service of Meyer at SVSP, where plaintiff indicated he was located. The Marshal

returned the summons unexecuted because Meyer was not located at SVSP. 

In cases wherein the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the “officers of the

court shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court must

appoint the Marshal to effect service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), and the Marshal,

upon order of the court, must serve the summons and the complaint, see Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). Although a plaintiff who is

incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by the Marshal,

such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service”;

rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has

knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Here, plaintiff’s second amended complaint has been pending for over 120

days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff has not provided sufficient

information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve Meyer, and consequently

plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his complaint without

prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (holding prisoner failed to

show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where

prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient information to

effectuate service).

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 19 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service or Provide Location Information

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_locate.wpd 3

Accordingly, plaintiff must either himself effect service on defendant Meyer,

or provide the Court with an accurate current location such that the Marshal is able

to effect service. If plaintiff fails to effectuate service on defendant Meyer, or

provide the Court with an accurate current location for said defendant, within thirty

(30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff’s claims against said defendant will

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 19 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3