Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02496/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02496-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2496 FCD GGH P

vs.

GRAY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why defendant

Winters should not be dismissed. 

On August 18, 2004, the court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve process on

defendant Winters. On November 9, 2004, service as to defendant Winters was returned

unexecuted. The U.S. Marshal forwarded to the court a letter from the Litigation Coordinator at

High Desert State Prison (HDSP) stating that HDSP had one employee with the last name of

Winters, a Medical Technical Assistant (MTA). The Litigation Coordinator requested that

plaintiff verify that this MTA was the person named as the defendant. 

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02496-FCD-GGH Document 59 Filed 02/16/06 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

2

On December 2, 2004, the court directed plaintiff to file further information

regarding defendant Winters. The court informed plaintiff that process as to this defendant was

returned unserved because HDSP stated that it was not clear that MTA Winters was the correct

defendant. On December 27, 2004, plaintiff submitted a new USM-295 form for defendant

Winters, identifying defendant as “Mr. Winters.” On January 26, 2005, the court ordered the

U.S. Marshal to again attempt service of this defendant.

On December 19, 2005, service as to defendant Winters was again returned

unexecuted. Attached to the documents returned by the U.S. Marshal was another letter from the

Litigation Coordinator at HDSP stating, 

We are returning this case to you, as we currently or in the past do not have an 

employee by the name of Counselor Winters. We have a MTA employee by the 

name of Frank Winters, however in review of the complaint we show no 

affiliation of MTA F. Winters in this case. 

After reviewing the operative complaint, filed October 17, 2003, the court cannot

determine defendant Winters’ job description. If plaintiff intended to name MTA Winters as a

defendant, the court presumes he would have clarified this in the most recently submitted USM285 form, rather than identifying him as “Mr. Winters.”

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why defendant Winters should not be dismissed

based on his inability to provide sufficient information regarding the identity of this defendant. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this

order, plaintiff shall show cause why defendants Winters should not be dismissed.

DATED: 2/16/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

mck2496.osc

Case 2:02-cv-02496-FCD-GGH Document 59 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2