Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT HAYES

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED PURSUANT 

TO RULE 4(M)

(Doc. 75)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, 

Byers, Doe, and Rotman on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims. Defendants 

Raman, Soto, and Byers waived service and made appearances in the action, and the United States

Marshal is still attempting service on Defendant Rotman. However, the Marshal was not able to 

locate Defendant Hayes and service was returned un-executed on August 8, 2013. 

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.

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 76 Filed 08/13/13 Page 1 of 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

2

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. 

At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it in 

attempting to locate and serve Defendant Hayes.

1

 Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff shall be 

provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant Hayes 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 Hayes shall be dismissed from this action.

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 Defendant Hayes 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 Hayes from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Marshal’s Office sought assistance from the prison, the Office of Legal Affairs for the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Attorney General’s Office. (Doc. 75.) 

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 76 Filed 08/13/13 Page 2 of 2