Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488-0/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

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

JOHN CARLOS DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5488-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

DEFENDANT GARDNER FROM ACTION

PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M)

(Docs. 20 and 26)

Plaintiff John Carlos Duarte (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action 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. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on January 8, 2004, against

defendants Gardner, Duffle, and Puentes. (Doc. 15.) On August 3, 2004, the court ordered plaintiff

to provide information to facilitate service of process on defendants by filling out and submitting to

the court a USM-285 form and a summons for each defendant to be served. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff

submitted the required documents on August 24, 2004, and, on September 8, 2004, the court directed

the United States Marshal to initiate service on three defendants. (Docs. 17, 18.) Two of the three

defendants subsequently waived service of the summons. (Docs. 22, 24.) However, the Marshal was

unable to locate defendant Gardner. (Doc. 20.) 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative

after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 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

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if

the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States 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 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 on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 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 Gardner is no longer accurate,

as the defendant is no longer employed by Taft Correctional Institution. (Doc. 20.) On November

22, 2004, plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to show cause why defendant Gardner should

not be dismissed from the action. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Rule 4(m),

defendant Gardner be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to

provide sufficient information for the Marshal to serve defendant.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 32 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 3