Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00262/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00262-14/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

AKIVA AVIKAIDA ISRAEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RABBI SHMARY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-0262-TLN-EFB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The United States Marshal previously returned process directed to defendant Alex Lainez, who 

plaintiff alleges was employed as Chaplain/Religious Review Committee Member at Mule Creek 

State Prison on or around September 2020 to September 2021. The unexecuted summons stated 

that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was unable to locate an 

employee by that name. ECF No. 37.

On March 29, 2022, and again on May 3, 2022, the court instructed plaintiff to provide 

new information for service of process on defendant Lainez, and warned plaintiff that failure to 

do so or show cause for such failure would result in a recommendation that defendant Lainez be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Nos. 38 & 43; see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (service of process must be effected within 90 days of the filing of the 

complaint unless plaintiff demonstrates good cause). The time for acting has passed and plaintiff 

has not responded to the court’s most recent order.

Case 2:21-cv-00262-TLN-EFB Document 46 Filed 06/13/22 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

2

Plaintiff has had several opportunities to submit information about where defendant 

Lainez can be served and has been warned that Rule 4(m) requires that service of process be 

effected within 90 days of the filing of the complaint absent a showing of good cause. The time 

for serving defendant Lainez has expired and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite good 

cause to avoid dismissal under Rule 4(m). 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendant Lainez be dismissed. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 13, 2022.

Case 2:21-cv-00262-TLN-EFB Document 46 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2