Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00622/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00622-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOLANO STATE PRISON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00622-SCR-P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff Antonio Rodriguez, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

second amended civil rights complaint. (ECF No. 21.) On March 21, 2023, the court ordered that 

service of plaintiff’s second amended complaint was warranted for defendant nurses N. Sabati 

and G. Coder (ECF No. 24.) On April 11, 2024, plaintiff requested an extension of time for the 

U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants. (ECF No. 39.) While that motion is now likely moot for the 

reasons explained below, to the extent it matters, and good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for 

an extension of time is granted. However, the U.S. Marshal service has been unable to locate 

defendant Coder with the information provided by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant 

Coder should be dismissed without prejudice at this time. 

Extension of Time for Service 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides: 

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, 

Case 2:21-cv-00622-KJM-SCR Document 49 Filed 09/17/24 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 

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. 

Because plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal service 

to serve the summonses and complaints on the defendants. See 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.” 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin 

v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 (1995). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time for 

service (ECF No. 39) is granted.1

Status of Service and Recommendation to Dismiss Coder 

 On August 26, 2024, a third amended “CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver” was filed 

indicating defendant Sabati intends to waive personal service.2 (ECF No. 47.) Like the previous 

notices filed, the third amended Notice of E-Service Waiver indicates CDCR cannot waive 

service on behalf of defendant Coder, who has not been located. (Id.; see also ECF Nos. 28, 42, 

43.) 

 On May 22, 2023, the court informed plaintiff that process directed to defendant Coder 

had been returned unserved because CDCR could not identify the individual for service. (ECF 

No. 30.) Plaintiff was directed to provide additional information to serve defendant Coder at that 

time. (Id.) Plaintiff complied with the order (ECF No. 35), but the U.S. Marshal service was still 

1

 Now that one defendant has waived service and the other cannot be located, see below, 

plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is likely moot as a practical matter. 

2

 A return of service filed on July 31, 2024, indicates defendant Sabati was also served by 

personal service. (ECF No. 45.) 

Case 2:21-cv-00622-KJM-SCR Document 49 Filed 09/17/24 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 

unable to locate defendant Coder with the further information provided by plaintiff. (See ECF 

Nos. 42, 43, 47.) 

Thus, plaintiff was given notice that defendant Coder could not be found and has had the 

opportunity to provide additional information to serve defendant Coder. However, plaintiff has 

not provided sufficient information to locate defendant Coder for service of process. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Coder should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) at this time. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time for service (ECF No. 39) is granted. 

In addition, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s 

claims against defendant Coder be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: September 16, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00622-KJM-SCR Document 49 Filed 09/17/24 Page 3 of 3