Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05947/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05947-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY LEE PRITCHARD, CASE NO. CV-F-02-5947 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS

vs. RANDOLPH AND SPEIDELL SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED

F. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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 amended complaint, filed on

November 18, 2002. On August 31, 2005, 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. Plaintiff submitted the required documents on September 26,

2005, and on October 7, 2005, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on five

defendants. Three of the five defendants subsequently made an appearance in this action. However, the

Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendants Randolph and Speidell, and on January 25, 2006, the

Marshal returned the USM-285 forms to the court. 

///

///

Case 1:02-cv-05947-LJO -DLB Document 34 Filed 11/21/06 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 Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison informed the Marshal that

there were no employees at CSP Corcoran by the names M. Randolph and R. Speidell. If plaintiff is

unable to provide the Marshal with additional information from which defendants Randolph and Speidell

can be located, 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 Randolph and

Speidell should not be dismissed from the action at this time. 

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 Randolph and Speidell 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

Case 1:02-cv-05947-LJO -DLB Document 34 Filed 11/21/06 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

recommendation that defendants Randolph and Speidell be dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 20, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05947-LJO -DLB Document 34 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3