Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794-7/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

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DILL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01794-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION ON

DEFENDANTS DILL, CHAN, VIETH, AND

BROWN

(Docs. 26 and 37)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2007. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 22, 2008, against Defendants Dill, Harden, Sobbe,

Sandoval, Tyson, Chan, Vieth, and Brown for violation of the Eighth Amendment arising from the

conditions of confinement on contraband watch at Kern Valley State Prison in 2006. The United

States Marshal was ordered to initiate service of process on March 19, 2009. Service was returned

un-executed as to Defendants Chan, Vieth, and Brown on August 26, 2009, and Defendant Dill on

October 26, 2009. (Docs. 26, 37.) The Marshal was informed by the Litigation Coordinator that

there were no employees at Kern Valley State Prison by those names. (Id.) 

The Court is skeptical that the Marshal was provided with adequate assistance in this matter

by prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison, particularly with respect to Associate Warden Dill

and Correctional Officer Vieth. The Court views it to be highly unlikely that prison officials are

unable to identify an associate warden and provide a current location for him in the event he is now

1

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 39 Filed 01/27/10 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

employed at another prison. Further, Vieth is a sufficiently unusual last name that the Court likewise

finds it unlikely that prison officials have no idea who the Marshal is seeking to serve. In addition,

the Marshal was directed to check with Legal Affairs Division, should it be necessary do to so, but

the USM-285 forms do not reflect compliance with that directive.

The Court and the Marshal have a statutory duty to serve process on Plaintiff’s behalf, and

based on information on the returned USM-285 forms, the Court is unable to discharge this duty on

the ground that Defendants Chan, Vieth, Brown, and Dill cannot be located. 28 U.S.C. 1915(d); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). However, it is in the interest of conservation of the Court’s and the Marshal’s

resources to obtain any additional information Plaintiff may possess before directing the Marshal to

again initiate service of process. Therefore, if Plaintiff has any further information on Defendants

which will help identify and locate them, such as first names or initials, or information on changes

to their employment or location of employment, he shall provide that to the Court within thirty days. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service

of this order, Plaintiff shall provide any further information he has on the identities or locations of

Defendants Chan, Vieth, Brown, and Dill.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

To the best of his ability, Plaintiff must ensure that he has provided the proper spellings for Defendants’

1

last names.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 39 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2