Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02029/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02029-14/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

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

Plaintiff James W. Millner is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Defendants J. 

Anderson, D. Rodriguez, and O. Marroquin; Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against Defendants W. 

Sweetser, R. Sulier, Pair, and Pelago; and Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to serious 

medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants J. Anderson, O. Marroquin, D. 

Rodriguez, W. Sweetser, R. Sulier, and Pair. 

Because Plaintiff paid the filing fee and he is not proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, 

he was provided instructions on serving all defendants in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 33.) 

On May 4, 2015, the summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant J. Pelago. (ECF No. 

55.) On this same date, Plaintiff filed a motion for further instructions on the procedure to serve 

JAMES W. MILLNER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02029-SAB (PC)

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF ADDITIONAL 

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT PELAGO 

[ECF Nos. 55, 56]

Case 1:13-cv-02029-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendant Pelago. (ECF No. 56.) The affidavit of unsuccessful service states that Deputy Kim 

Foreman, Sheriff’s Aide was unable to personally serve officer J. Pelago at Kern Valley State Prison 

because there was no employee by this name at such location. (ECF No. 55.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s 

claim, Defendant Pelago did not refuse service there simply was no officer by such name at the 

location provided by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is advised that it is his responsibility, not the Courts, to serve

each of the Defendants in this action. If good cause appears, the Court may extend the time for service 

for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). A plaintiff may show good cause where, as here, he 

attempted to serve a defendant but has not yet completed it. See Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370, 

372 (9th Cir. 1985) (applying the good cause standard); Mateo v. M/S KISO, 805 F.Supp. 792, 795 

(N.D. Cal. 1992). Because Plaintiff has attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to serve Defendant Pelago, 

the Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of thirty days from the date of service of this order to 

attempt further service of process on Pelago. However, Plaintiff is again advised that failure to service 

process on Defendant Pelago will result in dismissal of this Defendant without prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date 

of service of this order to attempt further service on Defendant Pelago. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02029-AWI-SAB Document 60 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2