Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02216/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02216-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY J. HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER LITTLE,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02216-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

SERVE OR TO PROVIDE LOCATION 

OF UNSERVED DEFENDANT; 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff and officials at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), where he 

was previously incarcerated. On May 13, 2015, the Court screened plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint, found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to 

safety as against SQSP Correctional Officer Little, and ordered him served. Docket No. 27.

On June 1, 2015, the summons for defendant Little was returned unexecuted with the 

following remark: “Dismissed from state service. No forwarding address.” Docket No. 31.

Accordingly, defendant Little has not been served.

Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on 

service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such 

service;” rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant 

and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Absent a showing of “good cause,” a complaint pending for 

over 120 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve 

the sole defendant, Officer Little. Consequently, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face 

dismissal of his claims without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 32 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under 

Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient information to 

effectuate service).

Accordingly, within 120 days of the May 13, 2015 third amended complaint, i.e., no later 

than September 10, 2015, plaintiff must effect service on defendant Officer Little, or submit to 

the Court sufficient information to identify and locate defendant Officer Little such that the 

Marshal is able to effect service. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of defendant Officer 

Little without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to: (1) request leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s May 13, 2015 order dismissing John Doe defendants 

1-5, and (2) conduct discovery to ascertain the identities of other possible Doe defendants and 

submit a fourth amended complaint. The motion is DENIED as unnecessary. A litigant may 

request leave to file a motion for reconsideration any time before entry of judgment. See Civ. L.R. 

7-9(a). Further, there are no current deadlines for plaintiff to name other possible Doe 

defendants. Rule 15(a) instructs that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, “[l]eave need not be granted where the amendment of 

the complaint would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes 

an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 

1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).

The briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s May 13, 2015 order is VACATED. The 

Court will issue a new briefing schedule for dispositive motions when all service issues have been 

resolved.

This order terminates Docket No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/9/2015

Case 4:14-cv-02216-HSG Document 32 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 2