Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01279/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01279-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16-CV-1279 JLS (MLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EMMETT FARR,

CDCR #T-51954,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1279 JLS (MLB)

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

STOUT PURSUANT TO FED. R. 

CIV. P. 4(m)

Plaintiff James Emmett Farr, currently incarcerated at California State Prison – Los 

Angeles County and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action against prison officials at 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) on May 27, 2016.

BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged constitutional violations by Defendants Paramo, 

Hernandez, Fink, Ramrakha, Amaro, Barnard, Ramirez, Savala, Soto, Stout, and Wall. See

Compl. at 1, 8. On January 13, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for the United 

States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service of his Complaint on the named 

Defendants. See ECF No. 11.

On March 29, 2017, Defendants Hernandez, Fink, Barnard, Amaro, Ramirez, 

Paramo, Ramrakha, and Savala moved to dismiss portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

Case 3:16-cv-01279-JLS-MSB Document 105 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-1279 JLS (MLB)

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

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 30. On August 18, 

2017, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a report and recommendation in which 

he recommended dismissal of: (1) all Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 

Amarao and Fink; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment retaliation, and 

generalized conspiracy claims as to all Defendants; (3) all claims against Defendant 

Paramo; and (4) the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims as to all Defendants. See 

ECF No. 35. On December 18, 2017, this Court adopted this report and recommendation 

in its entirety. See ECF No. 44.

Plaintiff later requested, and was granted, leave to file an amended complaint no 

later than April 5, 2018. See ECF Nos. 46, 52. Plaintiff, however, chose not to file an 

amended pleading; consequently, the original Complaint filed by Plaintiff remained the 

operative pleading. 

On April 19, 2018, Defendants Soto and Wall filed a motion to dismiss the claim 

against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 55. 

Magistrate Judge Dembin issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended 

that their motion be granted and all claims against them be dismissed with prejudice. See

ECF No. 57. The Court adopted this recommendation on October 17, 2018, and dismissed 

Defendants Soto and Wall from this action.

The remaining Defendants who properly had been served with the Plaintiff’s 

Complaint—Defendants Barnard, Hernandez, and Ramrakha—filed an Answer to the one 

remaining claim, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. See ECF No. 59. 

On July 26, 2019, Defendants Barnard, Hernandez, and Ramrakha filed a motion for 

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See ECF No. 73.

On December 9, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

and issued an Order to show cause (“OSC”) why Defendant Stout should not be dismissed 

for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). ECF No. 97 at 

20. The Court informed Plaintiff that, if he wished to proceed with his claims against 

Defendant Stout, he needed to file proof of proper service on Defendant Stout within thirty 

Case 3:16-cv-01279-JLS-MSB Document 105 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-1279 JLS (MLB)

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

days; otherwise, the Court would dismiss Defendant Stout without prejudice. Id. at 20, 21.

More than sixty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not provided a proof of service showing 

that Defendant Stout has been properly served or filed a motion seeking an extension of 

time to serve Defendant Stout.

ANALYSIS

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “In the absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the 

defendant) . . . a court ordinarily may not exercise power over a party the complaint names 

as a defendant.” Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 

(1999); Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is 

without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in 

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”) (citations omitted). 

The initial ninety days provided by Rule 4(m) to effect service on Defendant Stout

has long since passed in this case, yet a review of the Court’s docket indicates that he has 

yet to be served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (“[P]roof of service must be made to the 

court.”); S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2; Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421–22 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(holding that where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with sufficient 

information to effect service, the court’s sua sponte dismissal of those unserved defendants 

is appropriate under Rule 4(m)). The district court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint 

for lack of service, however, “without first giving notice to the plaintiff and providing an 

opportunity for him to show good cause for the failure to effect timely service.” Crowley, 

734 F.3d at 975 (citation omitted). Indeed, the district court has broad discretion under 

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-01279-JLS-MSB Document 105 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-1279 JLS (MLB)

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

Rule 4(m) to extend time for service upon a showing of good cause even after the service 

period has expired. See Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, the Court provided Plaintiff notice, along with an additional thirty days to 

serve Defendant Stout, and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to show good cause as to why he 

failed properly to serve Defendant Stout. Plaintiff, however, has not responded to the 

Court’s Order by either filing a proof of service or seeking additional time to serve 

Defendant Stout. Further, Plaintiff has failed to file any response at all to the Court’s OSC 

explaining his failure timely to serve Defendant Stout. The Court therefore concludes that 

dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendant Stout from this action for failure to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m). The Clerk of Court SHALL TERMINATE Defendant Stout from 

the Court’s docket and, because Defendant Stout was the sole remaining Defendant in this 

action, the Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2020

Case 3:16-cv-01279-JLS-MSB Document 105 Filed 02/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4