Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813-8/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT KEITH ERNST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0813 DAD AC P 

ORDER 

 On October 25, 2023, the court ordered service of the complaint on defendant Beck via 

the court’s e-service program. ECF No. 31. However, process directed to defendant Beck was 

returned unserved because defendant Beck has resigned from the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the CDCR has no contact information. ECF No. 37. 

Plaintiff was then ordered to use the means available to him to obtain additional information to 

serve Beck and provide that information to the court. ECF No. 38. He was advised that if access 

to the required information was denied or unreasonably delayed, he could seek judicial 

intervention. Id. Plaintiff has now filed a request for assistance in serving defendant Beck. ECF 

No. 45. 

In his motion, plaintiff states that he has attempted to obtain Beck’s information from the 

litigation coordinator and had family attempt to locate Beck through social media, but all attempts 

have been futile. ECF No. 44-1 at 3; ECF No. 45. He requests the court order the U.S. Marshal 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 52 Filed 03/22/24 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 

to locate and serve defendant Beck. ECF No. 45. The court previously indicated that service was 

unable to be completed on defendant Beck because the CDCR had no contact information (ECF 

No. 38), and plaintiff’s requests to the litigation coordinator at the prison appear to confirm that 

the CDCR has no contact information for this defendant (ECF No. 44-1 at 1-2; ECF No. 45 at 2). 

The court cannot order the CDCR to provide information they do not have. However, in 

the interests of justice, counsel for defendants Ashe, Miller, Nelson, Singh, Ramos, and Wong1

will be directed to conduct a good faith inquiry to identify a last known business or personal 

address at which Beck can be served and file such address with the court.2 See Penton v. Pool, 

724 F. App’x 546, 550-51 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court erred in placing the onus on an 

incarcerated plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to provide the necessary documentation to 

locate a defendant beyond identifying the defendant to the U.S. Marshal). If counsel cannot 

ascertain an address at which Beck can be served, they should inquire into and provide any other 

information that could assist in locating Beck,3

 such as a professional license number.4 If counsel 

is unable to identify any address for service or identify any other information that would assist in 

locating Beck, they shall so inform the court. 

 In ordering defendants’ counsel to assist the U.S. Marshal in locating defendant Beck, the 

court is not absolving plaintiff of his responsibility to continue attempting to locate this 

defendant. If the U.S. Marshal remains unable to locate Beck for service and the court is satisfied 

with their attempts to locate Beck, it will be recommended that Beck be dismissed for failure to 

complete service. Id. at 551 (“If the district court is satisfied that the Marshals have fulfilled their 

obligation to search for a viable address where [defendant] can be served, then it would act within 

its discretion to dismiss the action against [defendant] under Rule 4(m).”). Plaintiff should 

therefore continue his efforts to locate defendant Beck and provide the court with any additional 

information he may discovery that would assist with the completion of service. 

//// 

1

 These defendants are represented by the Attorney General’s Office. 

2

 If the address identified is a personal address, it may be filed under seal. 

3

 Information considered confidential may be filed under seal. 

4

 Plaintiff has alleged that Beck was a nurse. 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 52 Filed 03/22/24 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 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for assistance in serving defendant Beck (ECF No. 45) is 

GRANTED to the extent set forth above. 

2. Within thirty days of the filing of this order, counsel for Ashe, Miller, Nelson, Singh, 

Ramos, and Wong shall conduct an inquiry into defendant Beck’s last known address and provide 

that information to the court as set forth above. 

DATED: March 21, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 52 Filed 03/22/24 Page 3 of 3