Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-5/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

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BARRIOS, FNU HERNANDEZ, FNU 

WHITE, and FNU GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-HBK (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT GUTIERREZ SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 

SERVICE

(Doc. No. 18)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

Defendants J. Barrios, FNU Hernandez, FNU White, and FNU Gutierrez for violation of 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

On February 17, 2023, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendants under 

the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. 

(Doc. No. 18). On May 4, 2023, the Court received information that Defendants White, Barrios, 

and Hernandez were successfully identified as employees of California State Prison – Corcoran, 

but Defendant Gutierrez could not be identified. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24). On May 5, 2023, the United 

States Marshal returned the summons on Defendant Gutierrez as unexecuted. (Doc. No. 25). The 

U.S. Marshal was unable to identify Defendant Gutierrez for service of process. (Id.). If Plaintiff 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 31 Filed 06/08/23 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

is unable to provide the Marshal with the necessary information to identify and locate this 

defendant, Defendant Gutierrez shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. 

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

If a defendant is not served within 120 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, 115 

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

sufficient information 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.

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

why Defendant Gutierrez should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may 

respond to this order by providing additional information that will assist the Marshal in 

identifying Defendant Gutierrez for service of process. For example, Plaintiff may provide an 

approximate date for the incident at issue, a building number or facility where the incident took 

place, or other identifying physical features for Defendant Gutierrez.

////

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 31 Filed 06/08/23 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

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why Defendant Gutierrez 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).

Dated: June 8, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 31 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 3