Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04108/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04108-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Claims against an eighth defendant, M.S. Evans, were dismissed with leave to amend,

and ultimately dismissed when plaintiff failed to amend. 

2

A motion for summary judgment by these defendants is due April 11, 2007.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH W. CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-4108 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON OR

PROVIDE COURT WITH

LOCATION INFORMATION FOR

UNSERVED DEFENDANT

(Docket No. 19)

On October 12, 2005, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous officials at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). On March 31, 2006, the Court found the complaint stated,

against defendants Captain J.W. Lewis, Sergeant B. O’Kane, Lieutenant J. Hughes,

Correctional Officer W. Wilson, Correctional Officer J.J. McAnelly, Nurse M. Aaya, and

Nurse Zingler (“Zingler”), a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety

and medical needs, as well as a cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts against

defendant McAnelly.1

 Additionally, in its March 31, 2006 Order, the Court directed the

United States Marshal to serve said seven defendants at SVSP, where plaintiff indicated they

were located. The Marshal successfully served six of the defendants,2

 but returned the

summons unexecuted as to Zingler for the reason that she could not be located at SVSP.

In cases wherein the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the “officers of the court

shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court must appoint the Marshal

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to effect service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), and the Marshal, upon order of the court, must

serve the summons and the complaint, see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.

1994). Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely

on service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate

such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” 

Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Here, plaintiff’s complaint has been pending for over 120 days, and thus, absent a

showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without prejudice as to the unserved

defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Because plaintiff has not provided sufficient

information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve defendant Zingler, plaintiff must remedy

the situation or face dismissal of his claims against said defendant. See Walker v. Sumner,

14 F.3d at 1421-22 (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be

dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with

sufficient information to effectuate service). 

Accordingly, plaintiff must either himself effect service on defendant Zingler, or

provide the Court with an accurate current location such that the Marshal is able to effect

such service. If plaintiff fails to effectuate service on defendant Zingler, or provide the Court

with an accurate current location for said defendant, within thirty (30) days of the date this

order is filed, plaintiff’s claims against said defendant will be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2