Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144-14/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

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

KELLY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01144-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER CONTINUING RESOLUTION OF

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PENDING

CONCLUSION OF THE DISCOVERY PHASE

OF THIS LITIGATION

(Doc. 41)

Plaintiff Kelly Wilson (“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

complaint, filed on September 8, 2005. (Doc. 1.) On September 13, 2006, 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. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff

submitted the required documents on September 21, 2006, and on October 11, 2006, the court

directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on seven defendants. (Docs. 19, 21.) Five of

the seven defendants subsequently made an appearance in this action. (Docs. 27, 46.) However, the

Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendants Shedler and Pak, and the Marshal returned the

USM-285 forms and summonses to the court un-executed. (Docs. 38, 39.) 

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

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 48 Filed 03/29/07 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

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 byhaving 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 last known address for defendant Shedler is no longer accurate and

defendant Pak could not be identified. (Docs. 38, 39.) If plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal

with a current address at which defendant Shedler can be located and further identifying information

as to defendant Pak, these defendants must be dismissed from the action. On February 7, 2007,

pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court provided plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause why

defendants Shedler and Pak should not be dismissed from the action at this time. (Doc. 41.)

Plaintiff filed a response on February 23, 2007. (Doc. 43.)

Plaintiff’s position that the Marshal can obtain defendants’ Social Security numbers from the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is incorrect. It is the duty of neither the

court nor the Marshal to conduct an investigation on plaintiff’s behalf. It is plaintiff’s duty to

provide the Marshal with sufficient information to identify and locate the defendants. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 48 Filed 03/29/07 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

The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to discover information that may lead

to plaintiff’s ability to provide the court further identifying information regarding defendants. To

that end, the court will continue resolution of the outstanding order to show cause until the close of

discovery. However, if plaintiff fails to provide further identifying information concerning

defendants by the close of discovery, they will be dismissed from this action.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Resolution of the outstanding order to show cause is CONTINUED until the close

of discovery; and

2. If plaintiff fails to provide further identifying information concerning defendants

Shedler and Pak to the court by the close of discovery, defendants will be dismissed

from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 48 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 3