Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00474-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES STRAIN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0474 GEB GGH P

vs.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

R. SANDHAM, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By Order, filed October 12, 2005, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint

stated a cognizable claim for relief against several defendants, including defendant P. Mangis,

and ordered plaintiff to provide information for service of process upon defendants on forms

USM-285, a completed summons, sufficient copies of the complaint for service, and a notice of

compliance. On January 6, 2006, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve process upon, inter

alia, defendant Mangis. When process directed to defendant Mangis was returned unserved

because his current address was unknown, the court, by Orders, filed on April 7, 2006, and June

5, 2006, granted plaintiff extensions of time to submit the documents needed for service of

defendant P. Mangis. In the Order, filed on June 5, 2006, defendants’ counsel were directed to

Case 2:05-cv-00474-GEB-GGH Document 52 Filed 06/29/07 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

2

query the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to ascertain the

whereabouts of defendant Mangis. By a response filed on June 9, 2006, defendant Mahakian

indicated, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, that no information as to defendant

Mangis’ whereabouts could be found. By a response filed on June 15, 2006, counsel for

defendants Masterson, James, Roche, Rolfing, and Sandham submitted a declaration stating that

his inquiries to the CDCR had not revealed any other addresses for defendant Mangis than one in

Sparks, Nevada, to which the USM-285 and summons had evidently been forwarded and from

which the USM-285 form had been returned unexecuted. Plaintiff provided an address in New

Harmony, Utah by filing dated July 3, 2006. The court once again directed service of process

upon defendant Mangis by Order, filed on March 20, 2007, this time of the amended complaint,

filed on June 2, 2006, upon which this action proceeds, at the address most recently provided. 

However, the summons has again been returned unexecuted by filing, dated May 30, 2007,

stating it was “returned from post office” because the addressee had “moved, left no address.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) states, in relevant part:“[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....” 

The court has been generous in granting extensions of time to effect service of this party and has

invoked the aid of defendants’ counsel who have represented that they have made good faith, but

unsuccessful, efforts to locate P. Mangis. As neither plaintiff nor counsel for defendants have

been able to locate this party and the court has twice issued orders directing service of process,

and since service has been unsuccessfully attempted upon P. Mangis at three separate locations

(the first summons having been forwarded), the court will, at this time, recommend that

defendant P. Mangis be dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant P. Mangis be dismissed

from this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Case 2:05-cv-00474-GEB-GGH Document 52 Filed 06/29/07 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

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/29/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

stra0474.nsv 

Case 2:05-cv-00474-GEB-GGH Document 52 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 3