Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01199-3/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

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

Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This action is proceeding against Defendant Zamora for use of excessive force and against 

Defendant Schultz for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The United States marshal was not able to identify and locate Defendant Schultz and service 

was returned un-executed on September 16, 2015. 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

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 order that 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.

///

AVERY HYPOLITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. ZAMORA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-SAB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT 

N. SCHULTZ SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FROM THE ACTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

[ECF No. 23]

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 

“[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal 

for service of the summons and complaint and [he] 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) (internal quotations and citation 

omitted), 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 (internal quotations and 

citation omitted). 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. 

At this juncture, the United States marshal’s office has exhausted the avenues available to it in 

attempting to locate and serve Defendant Schultz.

1

 Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff shall be 

provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant Schultz should not be dismissed. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to show cause, 

Defendant Schultz shall be dismissed from this action.

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 Defendant Schultz should not be dismissed from this action; and

//

//

//

//

//

 

1

The marshal’s office sought assistance from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation special 

investigator who was unable to locate or identify officer Camacho. (ECF No. 23.) 

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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

dismissal of Defendant Schultz from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3