Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00836-16/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

SAAHDI COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFENDANT DEERING SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

(Doc. 27)

RESPONSE FROM PLAINTIFF DUE IN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable

claims against Defendants Adams, Divine, Martinez, Close, Suryadevara, Kyle, Nguyen, Deering,

Quezada, Smith, and Vierra for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Doc. 18; Doc. 22. 

1

On June 16, 2009, the Court forwarded documents to Plaintiff with instructions to complete

and return them to the Court for service of process on the Defendants. Doc. 21. After Plaintiff

returned the completed documents, on June 30, 2009, the Court ordered the United States Marshal

to initiate service of process upon Defendants. Docs. 24. On August 24, 2009, summons was

returned unexecuted as to Defendant Deering with a notation that Defendant Deering had died. Doc.

27. 

Thus, Defendant Deering was not successfully served and has not appeared in this action. 

There is no indication on the docket that service was ever attempted on Defendants Close and Quezada.

1

1

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 90 Filed 08/24/12 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

Therefore, Plaintiff shall be ordered to show cause whyDefendant Deering should not be dismissed. 

Within thirty days, Plaintiff shall file a written response with the Court explaining why Defendant

Deering should not be dismissed from this action for failure to successfully complete service of

process. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a non-opposition to the dismissal of Defendant Deering.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written

response showing cause why Defendant Deering should not be dismissed from this

action for failure to successfully complete service of process;

2. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a written non-opposition to the dismissal of

Defendant Deering; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this ordershall result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2012 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 90 Filed 08/24/12 Page 2 of 2