Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02496/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02496-2/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

ALONZO McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2496 FCD GGH P

vs.

GRAY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, the court recommends that defendant Winters be

dismissed.

On August 18, 2004, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve process on

defendant Winters. On November 9, 2004, service as to defendant Winters was returned

unexecuted. The U.S. Marshal forwarded to the court a letter from the Litigation Coordinator at

High Desert State Prison (HDSP) stating that HDSP had one employee with the last name of

Winters, a Medical Technical Assistant (MTA). The Litigation Coordinator requested that

plaintiff verify that this MTA was the person named as the defendant. 

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02496-FCD-GGH Document 63 Filed 03/29/06 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

2

On December 2, 2004, the court directed plaintiff to file further information

regarding defendant Winters. The court informed plaintiff that process as to this defendant was

returned unserved because HDSP stated that it was not clear that MTA Winters was the correct

defendant. On December 27, 2004, plaintiff submitted a new USM-295 form for defendant

Winters, identifying defendant as “Mr. Winters.” On January 26, 2005, the court ordered the

U.S. Marshal to again attempt service of this defendant.

On December 19, 2005, service as to defendant Winters was again returned

unexecuted. Attached to the documents returned by the U.S. Marshal was another letter from the

Litigation Coordinator at HDSP stating, 

We are returning this case to you, as we currently or in the past do not have an 

employee by the name of Counselor Winters. We have a MTA employee by the 

name of Frank Winters, however in review of the complaint we show no 

affiliation of MTA F. Winters in this case. 

After reviewing the operative complaint, filed October 17, 2003, the court could

not determine defendant Winters’ job description. If plaintiff intended to name MTA Winters as

a defendant, the court presumed he would have clarified this in the most recently submitted

USM-285 form, rather than identifying him as “Mr. Winters.” Accordingly, on February 16,

2006, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant Winters should not be dismissed

based on plaintiff’s inability to provide sufficient information regarding his identity.

On March 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order. Plaintiff

states that defendant Winters worked as a Counselor on D yard at HDSP in 2001. 

Despite plaintiff’s claim that defendant Winters worked at HDSP in 2001, the

court is unable to serve this defendant because HDSP has no record of Counselor Winters. 

Plaintiff has provided no information regarding defendant Winters’ current location. Under these

circumstances, the court can do nothing more toward serving this defendant. Because service

cannot be effected, the court recommends that the claims against defendant Winters be

dismissed.

Case 2:02-cv-02496-FCD-GGH Document 63 Filed 03/29/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Winters 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: 3/29/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

mc2496.dis

Case 2:02-cv-02496-FCD-GGH Document 63 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 3