Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01608/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01608-4/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

JAMES V. CAICO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1608 MCE GGH P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

For the following reasons, the court recommends that defendant Watson be

dismissed.

On October 28, 2003, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve defendant

Watson. On November 18, 2003, service as to defendant Watson was returned unexecuted

because plaintiff had not provided sufficient information to effect service. On November 25,

2003, the court granted plaintiff sixty days to submit additional information for service of

defendant Watson. On May 14, 2004, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty days to

submit this information.

Plaintiff finally submitted the documents necessary to effect service on January

10, 2005. On January 28, 2005, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to again attempt service of

defendant Watson. On September 28, 2005, service was again returned unexecuted. The

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 87 Filed 11/02/05 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

2

documents attached to the returned USM-285 form indicate that defendant Watson was a

contract doctor and is no longer employed at High Desert State Prison. The litigation department

at High Desert State Prison does not know his address. 

Because defendant Watson cannot be located, he cannot be served with process in

this action. For that reason, the court recommends that defendant Watson be dismissed. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Watson be dismissed.

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 twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 11/1/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

ca1608.dis(2)

Case 2:02-cv-01608-MCE -GGH Document 87 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2