Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SID LANDAU, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00815-AWI DLB PC

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

vs. DOE DEFENDANTS 1 THRU 10 FOR

FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION

SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT SERVICE OF

PROCESS

W.T. VOSS, et al.,

(Doc. 10)

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 7, 2008, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff

to furnish information sufficient to effect service on John Doe defendants 1 thru 10, within thirty days

from the date of service of the order. More than thirty days have passed and plaintiff has not responded

to the court’s order. (Doc. 10). 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on

motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.

But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.

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

///

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 34 Filed 04/24/09 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

2

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, Plaintiff was ordered to provide further information to assist the United States

Marshal is serving the Doe defendants, but Plaintiff has failed to do so. Accordingly, it is HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Doe defendants 1 thru 10

be dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to provide the Marshal with information

sufficient to effect timely service of the summons and complaint.

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 twenty (20) 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 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: April 23, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 34 Filed 04/24/09 Page 2 of 2