Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE I. JOHNSON, No. CIV S-06-1745-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SCOT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Process directed to defendants Lynch and Martinez was returned unexecuted on

January 25, 2007, because the United States Marshal was unable to identify them based on the

information provided by plaintiff. On February 8, 2007, the court issued an order advising

plaintiff of ways in which he could obtain more identifying information, including the use of the

civil discovery process. To date, plaintiff has not provided additional identifying information,

and defendants Lynch and Martinez remain unserved. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 10/02/07 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

2

On July 27, 2007, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why defendants Lynch

and Martinez should not be dismissed for failure to effect service. Plaintiff filed a response on

August 24, 2007. In his response, plaintiff asserts that prison officials have either denied or

ignored his requests for additional information. Plaintiff attaches prison officials’ response to his

request. That response indicates that plaintiff had not provided specific enough identifying

information for Lynch and Martinez and also states that, if plaintiff provided more information,

the request could be granted. In particular, the response from prison officials states:

. . . You are requesting “. . . the full names of Correctional Officers that

were or are employees at CSP-Sac of 11-2004 through 1-2005 on C-Yard

Building 5, Officers ‘Martinez’ and ‘Lynch.’”

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

reviewed your request and . . . denied your request for the following

reason(s):

The individuals cannot be identified based on the information you

provided. We attempted a search and discovered that there were five

Correctional Officers named “Martinez” at our institution at that time, and

two Correctional Officers named “Lynch.” After examining records, it is

determined that neither “Lynch” worked C-Yard Building 5. There were

multiple Officers named “Martinez” that worked C-Yard Building 5.

If you are able to provide us with a specific date and watch we may be able

to fulfill your request. 

Plaintiff has not, however, demonstrated that he followed up with additional information. 

Dismissal of these defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which requires

timely service, is now appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants Martinez

and Lynch be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect

service.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 10/02/07 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

3

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 2, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 34 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3