Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.L. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5077 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS DEFENDANT BRYANT FROM

ACTION (Doc. 24.) 

Louis Francis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on January

14, 2004, alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by defendants H.L. Bryant, G.L.

Honest, and G. Galaza. 

On June 21, 2005, the Court issued an Order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service

on Defendants H.L. Bryant, G. L. Honest and G. Galaza. The summonses for Defendants Honest

and Galaza were returned to the Court executed on October 2, 2005. However, the summons

was returned unexecuted for Defendant H.L. Bryant on September 28, 2005. 

On October 6, 2005, the Court issued a second Order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve

process on Defendant H.L. Bryant based on an insufficient response by the California

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 06/07/06 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

1

From the Litigation Coordinator’s response, it appeared that Defendant Bryant was identified, however, the

Court found that the response that Defendant Bryant was no longer at Corcoran incomplete. Thus, the U.S. Marshal

attempted service for a third time which produced the final return of service indicating that Defendant Bryant was

AWOL.

2

Department of Corrections.1 On November 28, 2005, the summons was returned unexecuted,

indicating that the CDC was unable to locate the Defendant. On December 14, 2005, Plaintiff

moved for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to attempt service again. However, on April 10,

2006, the summons was returned unexecuted by the U.S. Marshal yet again. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

[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 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. 

As set forth above, the instant action was filed on January 14, 2004, and the U.S. Marshal

has attempted service on Defendant Bryant at least three times without success. Although

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 06/07/06 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

Plaintiff has requested that the Court direct the U.S. Marshal to attempt service yet again, he

provides no information as to the whereabouts of Defendant Bryant such that service can be

effected. According to the summons returned, the U.S. Marshal contacted the Legal Affairs

Division and was informed that the named Defendant has “gone AWOL (absence without leave)

from the facility and [had] no forwarding address.” (Doc. 34.) Based on this information and the

lack of updated information regarding the whereabouts of Defendant Bryant, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that Defendant H.L. Bryant be DISMISSED from the action for failure to

effect service. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3