Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144-12/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

KELLY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01144-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHEDLER AND

PAK SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM

THIS ACTION

(Docs. 38 and 39)

Plaintiff Kelly Wilson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint, filed on September 8, 2005. (Doc. 1.) On September 13, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff

to provide information to facilitate service of process on defendants by filling out and submitting to

the court a USM-285 form and a summons for each defendant to be served. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff

submitted the required documents on September 21, 2006, and on October 11, 2006, the court

directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on seven defendants. (Docs. 19, 21.) Four of

the seven defendants subsequentlymade an appearance in this action, and service is still outstanding

as to one of the defendants. (Docs. 27, 28.) However, the Marshal was unable to locate and serve

defendants Shedler and Pak, and on January 29, 2007, and January 30, 2007, the Marshal returned

the USM-285 forms and summonses to the court. (Docs. 38, 39.) 

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/07/07 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

27

28

2

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[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 instance, the last known address for defendant Shedler is no longer accurate and

defendant Pak could not be identified. (Docs. 38, 39.) If plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal

with a current address at which defendant Shedler can be located and further identifying information

as to defendant Pak, these defendants shall be dismissed from the action, without prejudice.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why

defendants Shedler and Pak should not be dismissed from the action at this time. If plaintiff has a

medical record with defendant Pak’s name on it, he should submit it in response to this order, as it

may assist in identifying defendant Pak. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/07/07 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall show

cause why defendants Shedler and Pak should not be dismissed from this action; and

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in a

recommendation that defendants Shedler and Pak be dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 3