Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738-8/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

JOSEPH WIDBY, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6738 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT

vs. KIM SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

HESSELTINE, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

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 second amended complaint, filed

on April 7, 2005. On April 15, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to provide information to facilitate

service of process on defendants by filling out and submitting to the court a USM-285 form and a

summons for each defendant to be served. Plaintiff submitted the required documents on April 29, 2005

and June 1, 2005, and on June 23, 2005, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service

on ten defendants. Two of the three defendants subsequently made an appearance in this action.

However, the Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendant Kim, and on August 25, 2005, the

Marshal returned the USM-285 form to the court. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days

after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after

notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 11/15/06 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

27

28

2

direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows

good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate

period.

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

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, the information provided by plaintiff for defendant Kim was insufficient to

enable the marshal to effect service. The marshal was advised that there was no one employed at

Pleasant Valley State Prison as a Registered Nurse with the surname Kim. The marshal was advised that

the institution formerlyemployed a physician named Min Kim, M.D., however Dr. Kim has retired from

State service. If plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with current address at which defendant Kim

can be located, this 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 Kim should not

be dismissed from the action at this time. 

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

1. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall show cause

why defendant Kim 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 a

recommendation that defendant Kim be dismissed from this action.

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 11/15/06 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

27

28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 14, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 54 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 3