Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00357/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00357-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONG WAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

20 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00357 AWI DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REQUEST 

SERVICE

(Document 13)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Long Way (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

action on March 9, 2012, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by 

federal actors. Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is therefore not proceeding in forma pauperis. 

In his original complaint, Plaintiff named 20 Unknown Employees of Federal Bureau of 

Prisons USP-Atwater, as Defendants. He did not identify any Defendants by name. The Court 

screened the complaint on February 27, 2013, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

Although the Court found a cognizable First Amendment access to courts claim, the Court 

explained that Plaintiff had to file an amended complaint naming at least one Defendant because 

he could not effectuate service otherwise. The amended complaint could either proceed on the 

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 2
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

cognizable First Amendment claim or attempt to cure the deficiencies in the other claims 

identified in the screening order. 

On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint along with a Motion to 

Request Service. Plaintiff again fails to name any specific Defendants in the First Amended 

Complaint. In the Motion to Request Service, he states that it is impossible to name Defendants, 

as ordered by the Court. He requests that a United States Marshal proceed with service of 

process. Plaintiff is not proceeding pro se and his is therefore responsible for serving 

Defendants. However, without any named Defendants, neither Plaintiff nor the United States 

Marshal is able to effectuate service. His motion is therefore DENIED.

It appears that this action is at an impasse. At least one named Defendant is required for 

service and to move this action forward, but Plaintiff believes that it is impossible for him to 

determine their identities. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to obtain the names of at least one 

Defendant and prosecute this action.

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any he has, why this action 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff must file a response to this order to 

show cause within 21 days. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-00357-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 04/03/13 Page 2 of 2