Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01558/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01558-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

19cv1558-MMA (RBM) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN HANS LAKE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 19cv1558-MMA (RBM) 

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL PURSUANT 

TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 4(m) 

 Plaintiff Steven Hans Lake, while detained at the San Diego County Sheriff 

Department’s George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) located in San Diego, 

California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against Defendants County of San Diego and the GBDF Medical Director, alleging 

violation of his constitutional right to adequate medical care. See Doc. No. 1. Defendant 

County of San Diego moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 11. Plaintiff did not file a response to the 

motion. On December 17, 2019, the Court granted the County’s unopposed motion. See 

Doc. No. 13. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should 

Case 3:19-cv-01558-MMA-RBM Document 16 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv1558-MMA (RBM) 

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

not be dismissed as to Defendant GBDF Medical Director for failure to serve this 

defendant with the summons and complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). See id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s December 17, 

Order, and the time in which to do so has expired.1

 

As the Court noted in its previous order, Defendant GBDF Medical Director is the 

only named defendant in this action besides Defendant County of San Diego. Plaintiff’s 

attempt to serve the GBDF Medical Director was unsuccessful. See Doc. No. 10. “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.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m). 

Under the mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed this action on July 22, 2019. The time 

period to effectuate service under Rule 4(m) has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate good cause for his failure to serve the GBDF Medical Director. 

Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of the complaint and 

summons on Defendant GBDF Medical Director, the sole remaining defendant in this 

action, the Court DISMISSES the action in its entirety without prejudice. See Walker v. 

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that an incarcerated pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis must provide the marshal with sufficient information 

                                               

1

 The Court notes that the Clerk of Court has been unable to serve Plaintiff via U.S. Mail with the 

Court’s most recent orders. The mail has been returned to the Court by the San Diego County Sheriff’s 

Department with notations indicating that Plaintiff has been released from custody. See Doc. Nos. 14, 

15. A search of the Sheriff’s online inmate locator system demonstrates that Plaintiff is no longer in 

custody. See https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/WijList.aspx?LastName=Lake&FirstName=Steven (last 

visited 2/11/2020). Pursuant to this District’s Local Rules, “[a] party proceeding pro se must keep the 

court and opposing parties advised as to current address.” SD CivLR 83.11.b. Plaintiff has failed to do 

so, which ultimately could serve as an additional ground upon which to dismiss this action without 

prejudice. See id. (“If mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the clerk at the plaintiff's last designated 

address is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties 

within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the court may dismiss the action without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute.”). In any event, because dismissal is appropriate under Rule 4(m), the 

Court need not wait to dismiss this action pursuant to its Local Rules and may dismiss the action now. 

Case 3:19-cv-01558-MMA-RBM Document 16 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv1558-MMA (RBM) 

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

necessary for service), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 

(1995). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and 

close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 12, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01558-MMA-RBM Document 16 Filed 02/12/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3