Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00167/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00167-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOLFLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00167-DLB (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

DEFENDANT H. ERHMAN SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE

INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT

SERVICE

(DOC. 15)

Plaintiff Donald Gilbert (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custodyof the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed

on June 5, 2009. (Doc. 7.) On December 3, 2009, the Court issued an order directing the United

States Marshal to initiate service of process on four Defendants. (Doc. 11.) The Marshal was unable

to locate and serve Defendant H. Erhman and on August 2, 2010, the USM-285 form was returned

to the Court. (Doc. 15.)

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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 orderthat service bemade 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)(2). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro

se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the

1

Case 1:09-cv-00167-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 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

summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure

to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.’” Walker

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990)), abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “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, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers

v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). 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 defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14

F.3d at 1421-22. 

In this instance, the address provided by Plaintiff for Defendant H. Erhman is no longer

accurate, as Defendant H. Erhman is no longer employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison, and is not

in the CDC locator. (Doc. 15.) If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with a current address

or other helpful information by which Defendant H. Erhman can be located (such as time and place

of employment pertaining to this action, or first name), the Defendant shall be dismissed from the

action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to show cause whyDefendant H. Erhman should not be dismissed from the action at this

time.1

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

cause why Defendant H. Erhman 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

dismissal of Defendant H. Erhman from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 11, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Because the Attorney General’s office is not representing any parties in this action, the Court will not

1

order the Attorney General’s office to assist Plaintiff.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00167-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2