Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00642/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00642-6/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

JOEL ALATORRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00642-AWI-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

EFFECT SERVICE WITHIN ONE-HUNDRED

TWENTY DAYS (Doc. 8)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Plaintiff Joel Alatorre (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and California tort law. Plaintiff filed this

action on May 17, 2005. On March 31, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to effect

service ofsummonses and the complaint on Defendants Adams,Rivera,Barba, Astorga, Rodriguez,

Jimenez, and Cavillo within one-hundred twenty days. More than one-hundred twenty days have

passed. There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff effected service on

Defendants.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If 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.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court directed Plaintiff to effect service within a specified time.

On August 15, 2006, the Court provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to show good cause, within

Case 1:05-cv-00642-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/22/06 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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order on September 5, 2006, as undeliverable. A notation 1

on the envelope indicates the address was insufficient to locate plaintiff. The court verified the order was mailed to

plaintiff at his address of record with the court and that the CDC identification number on the order matched court

records. The name and address on the envelope were not incomplete or incorrect, and Plaintiff has not notified the

court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local

Rule 83-182(f). 

2

twenty days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process on

Defendants, and warned that dismissal of this action, without prejudice, would result if plaintiff

either failed to respond to the order or responded to the order but failed to show good cause.

Plaintiff did not file a response to the order to show cause. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule 1

of Civil Procedure 4(m), it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00642-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2