Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service or Provide Location Information

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-5429 Lara05429_locate.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS LARA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. POSNER, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5429 JW (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON OR

PROVIDE COURT WITH LOCATION

INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on May 17, 2004, alleging he received inadequate medical care

from SVSP employees Dr. Posner, Dr. Haffner, Medical Technical Assistant J.

McAnutez, and Medical Technical Assistant Willis. On November 9, 2006, the

Court found that the amended complaint, when liberally construed, stated a claim

against all four defendants. In that same order, the Court directed the United States

Marshal to serve defendants at SVSP, where plaintiff indicated they were located. 

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 28 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On February 26, 2007, plaintiff wrote a letter to the court indicating that he has

requested further location information for defendant McAnutez from prison officials. 

Plaintiff has not since indicated what information, if any, he received in response, nor has

he provided any indication as to what efforts he has made to locate the other defendants. 

Plaintiff attaches to the letter some medical records which he claims indicate McAnutez is

an M.T.A. at SVSP. The records contain a signature which the court cannot decipher, and

no indication as to the signator’s title or position at SVSP. 

Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service or Provide Location Information

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-5429 Lara05429_locate.wpd 2

On January 29 and 30, 2007, the Marshal returned the summonses unexecuted,

indicating that defendants are not located at SVSP. In that regard, the Marshal noted

that Dr. Posner, Dr. Haffner, and Willis no longer work at SVSP, and that McAnutez

is “unknown at the facility.” 

In cases wherein the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the “officers of the

court shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court must

appoint the Marshal to effect service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), and the Marshal,

upon order of the court, must serve the summons and the complaint, see Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). Although a plaintiff who is

incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by the Marshal,

such 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.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint has been pending for over 120 days, and

thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without prejudice. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow

the Marshal to locate and serve defendants, and consequently plaintiff must remedy

the situation or face dismissal of his complaint without prejudice.1

 See Walker v.

Sumner, 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).

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 28 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service or Provide Location Information

N:\Pro - Se\9.6.2007\02-5429 Lara05429_locate.wpd 3

Accordingly, plaintiff must either himself effect service on defendants, or

provide the Court with their accurate current location such that the Marshal is able to

effect service. If plaintiff fails to effectuate service on defendants, or provide the

Court with an accurate current location for them, within thirty (30) days of the date

this order is filed, plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED: August 31, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 28 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3