Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01046-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

1:22-cv-01046-NODJ-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT FRYE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECT SERVICE 

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roberto Johnson is a former county and current state inmate proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Frye. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 27, 2023, this Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate And 

Forwarding Service Documents To Plaintiff For Completion And Return. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff 

submitted service documents on January 10, 2024. (Doc. 21.) On that same date, the United 

States Marshals Service was directed to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant Frye. 

(Doc. 22.) Specifically, the order identified Defendant Frye as follows: “Kern County Deputy 

Sheriff Frye, Badge No. 1572.” (Id, emphasis in original.) 

On March 26, 2024, the United States Marshals Service filed its USM-285 form indicating 

service on Defendant Frye could not be effected. (Doc. 24.) The United States Marshals Service 

was advised by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office advised that “Deputy Frye has not worke[d] 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 25 Filed 03/29/24 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

there since 2021.” (Id.)1

II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

If a defendant is not served within 90 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).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 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 . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed 

for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 

duties required of each of them . . ..” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“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 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 

(1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient 

information to identify the defendant and to effect service of the summons and complaint, the 

Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-

22.

The United States Marshal has attempted to serve Defendant Frye with the information 

provided by Plaintiff and was advised that Deputy Frye was no longer employed at the Kern 

County Sheriff’s Office. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Marshal with accurate and 

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and Plaintiff’s complaint on Defendant

Frye. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. It is his obligation to do so. Id. at 1422. If Plaintiff is unable to 

provide the United States Marshal with the necessary information to locate this individual, 

1 Apparently, no last known address for Deputy Frye was available and/or provided. 

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 25 Filed 03/29/24 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

Defendant Frye shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 

why Defendant Frye should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may respond to 

this order by providing additional information2that will assist the United States Marshal in 

locating Defendant Frye for service of process. 

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 Frye 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 any unidentified defendant from this action, due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 Helpful additional information might include, for example, first initial or name if known, a physical 

description (approximate age, height and weight, eye and hair color, any other distinguishing feature), 

possible current employment and/or residential addresses.

Case 1:22-cv-01046-KES-SKO Document 25 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 3