Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04674/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04674-5/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON ATLEE PARSONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04674-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SERVE OR TO PROVIDE LOCATION

OF UNSERVED DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 22, 2015, the Court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 

found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to safety. 

Service has been ordered on eight defendants, including plaintiff’s former public defender, Judith 

A. Browne, for whom plaintiff provided a home address for service.

On July 31, 2015, the summons for defendant Browne was returned unexecuted with the 

following remark by the United States Marshal: “Spoke with property manager. House is a rental. 

Browne moved out late 2014. Location unknown.” Docket No. 24. Accordingly, defendant 

Browne 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).

Case 4:14-cv-04674-HSG Document 30 Filed 09/01/15 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

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

defendant Browne. Consequently, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his 

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

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 sixty (60) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff must effect 

service on defendant Browne, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate 

defendant Browne such that the Marshal is able to effect service. Failure to do so will result in 

dismissal of defendant Browne without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/1/2015

Case 4:14-cv-04674-HSG Document 30 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2