Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00250-3/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

GEORGE K. COLBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00250-AWI-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT DOUCAN 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO 

RULE 4(M)

[ECF No. 30]

Plaintiff George K. Colbert is a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against 

Defendants Chavez, Doucan, Lindsey, Emard, Flores, Razmirez, and Farnsworth for excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Chavez, Doucan, Lindsey, 

Emard, Flores, and Ramirez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The United 

States Marshal have not been able to locate and serve Defendant Doucan. 

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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 31 Filed 01/24/14 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

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the United States 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....” Id. 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. Id. at 1421-1422. 

Here, the Marshal sent the service packet to California Correctional Institution, in 

Tehachapi, California, which was forwarded to the special investigator who was unable to identiy 

or locate Defendant Doucan. Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to show cause why 

Defendant Doucan should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If Plaintiff either fails to 

respond to this order or responds but fails to show cause, Defendant Doucan shall be dismissed 

from this action.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 31 Filed 01/24/14 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

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 Defendant Doucan 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 the 

dismissal of Defendant Doucan from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00250-DAD-SAB Document 31 Filed 01/24/14 Page 3 of 3