Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05073/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05073-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

NURSE EFREN GARZA, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5073 SBA (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS PINTO

AND GARZA AND TERMINATING PENDING

MOTION

In an Order dated April 22, 2008, the Court issued a "Second Notice Regarding Inability to

Confirm Current Addresses for Defendants Pinto and Garza." The Court noted that Defendants Pinto

and Garza were no longer employed by the county medical facility assigned to the Santa Clara

County Jail. The Court directed the United States Marshal to re-serve Defendants Pinto and Garza at

their last known addresses. Plaintiff was directed to continue his attempts to locate Defendants Pinto

and Garza and to provide the Court with the current addresses for Defendants Pinto and Garza within

twenty days from the date of the April 22, 2008 Order. The Court warned Plaintiff: "If the United

States Marshal is unable to serve Defendants Pinto and Garza at their last known addresses and if

Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with their current addresses within the twenty-day deadline, all

claims against Defendants Pinto and Garza will be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m)." 

(Apr. 22, 2008 Order at 2.)

Defendants Pinto and Garza have not been served as each summons was returned unexecuted

on May 28, 2008. Moreover, the twenty-day deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to furnish

the Court with Defendants Pinto and Garza current addresses. 

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), he is responsible for providing the Court

with current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.

1990). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120

days from the filing of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. 

Case 4:04-cv-05073-SBA Document 72 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 3
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.04\Goldstein5073.4(m)dismissal.frm 2

When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must "attempt to

remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge." Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107,

1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the marshal is unable to effectuate service through no fault of his own, e.g.,

because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information, the plaintiff must seek to remedy the

situation or face dismissal. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why

prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he

provided marshal with sufficient information to serve official or that he requested that official be

served); see also Del Raine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1029-31 (7th Cir. 1994) (prisoner failed to

show good cause for failing to timely effect service on defendant because plaintiff did not provide

marshal with copy of amended complaint until after more than 120 days after it was filed).

In an Order dated April 22, 2008, the Court informed Plaintiff of the United States Marshal's

inability to serve Defendants Pinto and Garza and directed Plaintiff to provide the Court with a

current address for Defendants Pinto and Garza within twenty days of the Order. Twenty days have

passed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with Defendants Pinto's and Garza's current

addresses. Accordingly, all claims against Defendants Pinto and Garza are DISMISSED without

prejudice under Rule 4(m).

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Order Directing Santa Clara County Counsel's

Office to Answer for Defendants Garza and Pinto (docket no. 68). Pursuant to this Order dismissing

Defendants Pinto and Garza without prejudice under Rule 4(m), Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

This Order terminates Docket no. 68.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/29/08 ______________________________

 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05073-SBA Document 72 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 3
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.04\Goldstein5073.4(m)dismissal.frm 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GARZA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV04-05073 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 30, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Darryl Lee Goldstein

101 Hyde Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dated: May 30, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:04-cv-05073-SBA Document 72 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 3