Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMED ABDALLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KRAMER, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5453 REC SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS DEFENDANTS CAMMISO AND

DALY FROM ACTION 

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

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed this action on April 23, 2002, against Defendants Sydenstricker, Witwer,

Bird, Rexin, Cammiso and Daly. Defendants Sydenstricker, Witwer and Bird were successfully

served with the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal. However, Defendants Rexin, Cammiso and

Daly were not. Defendants Sydenstricker, Witwer and Bird filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment on July 5, 2005, which is pending before the District Court following the issuance of

Findings and Recommendations on April 14, 2006, by the undersigned. Defendant Rexin was

later served and filed an Answer on November 23, 2005. However, service was again returned

unexecuted for Defendants Cammiso and Daly. 

This Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 5, 2005, why Defendants Daly and

Cammiso should not be dismissed from the action. Plaintiff responded to the Order on October

21, 2005, providing further information on the whereabouts of Defendant Daly. Plaintiff also

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 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

moved to dismiss Defendant Cammiso from the action. (Doc. 83.) 

Based on Plaintiff’s response, the Court ordered that service on Defendant Daly be again

attempted by the U.S. Marshal. On March 6, 2006, service was again returned unexecuted. On

March 31, 2006, the Court issued a second Order to Show Cause why Defendant Daly should not

be dismissed from the action. Plaintiff responded on April 25, 2006, stating that he wished to

call Defendant Daly as a witness and thus, Defendant Daly should not be dismissed from the

action. Plaintiff then requested that the Court issue another Order directing the U.S. Marshal to

serve Defendant Daly. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within

120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as

to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time;

provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon

order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[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 ... 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) (quoting Puett v.

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), 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 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). 

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. 

In this case, the instant action was filed on April 23, 2002, and to date, the U.S. Marshal

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 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

3

has been unable to effect service on him. According to the Court record, service on Defendant

Daly has been returned unexecuted on August 22, 2002, October 15, 2002, February 21, 2003,

September 9, 2004, and finally on March 6, 2006. Moreover, the case has progressed through

discovery to and including summary judgment for all but one of the Defendants. Plaintiff’s

justification that he wishes to call Defendant Daly as a witness alone is insufficient to assist the

U.S. Marshal in effecting service. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request to dismiss Defendant

Cammiso from the action be GRANTED, and that Defendant Daly also be DISMISSED from the

action for failure to effect service. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of 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.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3