Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01037-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROSSER, Civil No. 10-1037-JAH(WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

DIRECTING CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

TO SUPPLY PLAINTIFF WITH

DEFENDANTS H. SANCHEZ’S AND

MENDEZ’S CURRENT ADDRESS;

AND

(2) GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS H.

SANCHEZ AND MENDEZ

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m)

[Doc. No. 22]

v.

H. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

On May 12, 2010, Larry Rosser (“Plaintiff’), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the

High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 14, 2010, the Court found that the claims in

Plaintiff’s Complaint were sufficient to survive the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and directed the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to effect

service on Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). 

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 23 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 4
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

On the following day, the Clerk issued a summons and prepared an “IFP package,”

including certified copies of Plaintiff’s Complaint, a U.S. Marshal Form 285 (“USMS Form

285”) for each Defendant named in the Complaint, and a copy of the Court’s Order granting

Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. See Puett v. Blandford, 895 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1990) (“An

incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

for service of summons and complaint.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(a), (c)(3).

Summonses were returned unexecuted as to Defendants H. Sanchez and Mendez 

According to the USMS, it was informed by the litigation coordinator at Donovan State Prison

that Defendants H. Sanchez and Mendez were not employed at that institution. Therefore,

Plaintiff now moves the Court by letter for the California Department of Corrections to provide

him with Defendants H. Sanchez’s and Mendez’s current addresses. The California Department

of Corrections has refused to give Plaintiff Defendants H. Sanchez’s and Mendez’s current

addresses.

I. FED.R.CIV.P. 4 Service Rules

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

[i]f 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).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order of the

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

“‘[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,

912 F.2d at 275), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 23 Filed 11/01/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

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; see also Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th

Cir. 1987) (noting that plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such

service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge”). Here,

because Plaintiff has not yet been able to ascertain the proper location where Defendants H.

Sanchez and Mendez may now be served, he must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his

claims against Defendants H. Sanchez and Mendez. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (holding

prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where

prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate

service). 

Accordingly, as long as Defendants H. Sanchez’s and Mendez’s current and/or

forwarding addresses can be easily ascertained by reference to the CDCR’s personnel records,

Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendants H. Sanchez and

Mendez on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at 275. The Court hereby directs the Deputy

Attorney General assigned to this case to contact either the Litigation Coordinator at High Desert

State Prison or the CDCR’s Legal Affairs Division, if necessary, and provide Defendants H.

Sanchez’s and Mendez’s current and/or forwarding address within the CDCR’s records or

possession, and to forward that address to the USMS in a confidential memorandum.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS the Deputy

Attorney General assigned to this case to provide the forwarding addresses for Defendants H.

Sanchez and Mendez to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential memorandum indicating that the

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 23 Filed 11/01/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

summonses and complaint are to be delivered to those addresses. The Attorney General shall

provide the U.S. Marshal with any such information on or before December 1, 2010.

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of any available address from the Attorney General,

the Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and summonses

upon Defendants H. Sanchez and Mendez. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United

States pursuant to the Court’s July 14, 2010 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and

directing service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of: (1) the

Court’s July 14, 2010 Order; (2) this Order; (3) the Complaint, summonses and a blank U.S.

Marshal Form 285 to the Attorney General for purposes of re-attempting service as to

Defendants H. Sanchez and Mendez. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 1, 2010

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 23 Filed 11/01/10 Page 4 of 4