Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502-2/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 John Catanzarite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action is proceeding on a due process violation against Defendants M. Carrasco, F. 

Gonzalez, J. Marshall, K. Schulteis, K. Holland, A. Reed, C. Rouston, B. Snider, V. McLaughlin, D. 

Walker, T. Miner, T. Steadmen, J. Ramos, B. Sunday, D. Pierce, M. Nipper, D. Liles, E. Croxton, D. 

Drake, and I. Gassaway. 

On January 16, 2014, the Court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service of process 

on these defendants. However, the Marshal was not able to locate Defendant B. Sunday and service 

was returned un-executed on January 28, 2014. 

On February 3, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why 

Defendant B. Sunday should not be dismissed for failure to provide sufficient information to 

JOHN CATANZARITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01502-LJO-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT B. SUNDAY, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 4(m)

[ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24] 

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 03/05/14 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

effectuate service of process. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on 

February 27, 2014. (ECF No. 24.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

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.

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. 

Here, the Court previously determined in its order to show cause that the Marshal had 

exhausted avenues available to him to locate and serve Defendant B. Sunday. Walker, 14 F.3d at 

1421-1422. Nothing in Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause suggests Plaintiff can provide 

any further information relevant to effectuating service upon Defendant Sunday. Plaintiff has failed to 

provide the Court with good cause to extend the time for serving Defendant Sunday, and this 

Defendant should be dismissed. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 03/05/14 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

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant B. Sunday be dismissed without prejudice 

for failure to provide information sufficient for the Marshal to effectuate service. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 03/05/14 Page 3 of 3