Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00573-6/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

THORNELL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMBROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00573-DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

DEFENDANT JOE GARCIA SHOULD NOT

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE

INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT

SERVICE

(Doc. 26)

Plaintiff Thornell Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed March 30, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On November 13, 2009, the Court issued an

order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on ten defendants. (Doc. 13.) 

The litigation coordinator of Kern ValleyState prison responded to the United States Marshal service

on January 27, 2010. (Doc. 26.) The litigation coordinator indicated that there are at least 3 Joe

Garcias working in Kern Valley State Prison, and thus was unable to accept service.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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 orderthat 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 in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the

1

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 27 Filed 04/21/10 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

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. Conner, 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, the information provided by Plaintiff is incomplete, as there are three

different Joe Garcias employed at Kern Valley State Prison. (Doc. 26.) If Plaintiff is unable to

provide the Marshal with further information so that Defendant Joe Garcia can be located, the

defendant shall be dismissed from the action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court

will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why Defendant Joe Garcia should not be

dismissed from the action at this time. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show

cause why Defendant Joe Garcia should not be dismissed from this action; and

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in

dismissal of Defendant Joe Garcia from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 21, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

77e0d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00573-JLT Document 27 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2