Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04229/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04229-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Plaintiff’s other claim, of an improper transfer to another prison, was dismissed as not

cognizable. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILTON SYKES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES HAMLET, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4229 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON OR

PROVIDE COURT WITH

LOCATION INFORMATION FOR

UNSERVED DEFENDANT

(Docket Nos. 28 & 43)

On October 6, 2004, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pleasant Valley

State Prison (“PVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the California Training Facility in Soledad, California

(“CTF”), where plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. On November 15, 2005, the Court

found cognizable plaintiff’s claim that defendants James Hamlet (“Hamlet”), W.B. Childress

(“Childress”) and Timothy Y. Friederick (“Friederick”), all CTF employees, were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.1

 

On February 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction; on

March 23, 2006, he filed a supplement thereto. In his motion, plaintiff seeks an order

directing defendants and officials of PVSP to provide him with additional medical care. The

defendants in this action do not work at PVSP, where plaintiff is now housed, however; as a

Case 3:04-cv-04229-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/28/06 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

2

Plaintiff was transferred to PVSP in August 2004.

3

The proper venue for an action against PVSP officials is the Eastern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b),1391(b).

2

result they cannot be ordered to provide plaintiff with medical care.2 The Court cannot

enjoin officials at PVSP because they are not defendants to this action. See Zepeda v. I.N.S.,

753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). To the extent plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against

PVSP officials, he must do so by way of a separate action filed against them.3

 Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be DENIED. 

On June 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment against

Hamlet, on the grounds such defendant has not filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this

action. The record indicates Hamlet has not been served with summons and complaint. In an

order filed November 15, 2005, the Court directed the United States Marshal (“Marshal”) to

serve Hamlet, Childress and Friederick at CTF, where plaintiff indicated they were located. 

The Marshal successfully served Childress and Friederick at that location; but, on

December 21, 2005, returned the summons unexecuted as to Hamlet, indicating he could not

be located at CTF because he had “retired some time ago.” Accordingly, as Hamlet has not

been served, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment will be DENIED.

Plaintiff must effectuate service on Hamlet or provide the Court with his current

location. In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding 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). While plaintiffs who are incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may

rely on service by the Marshal, “a plaintiff may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate

such service. At 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 complaint has

been pending for over 120 days and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to

Case 3:04-cv-04229-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/28/06 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

3

dismissal of the unserved defendant without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). If the

Marshal is unable to effectuate service because, as is the case here, plaintiff has not provided

sufficient information to locate the defendant, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face

dismissal. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner

failed to show good cause why prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m)

where prisoner did not show he had provided Marshal with sufficient information to serve

official). Accordingly, plaintiff himself must effect service on Hamlet or provide the Court

with said defendant’s current location such that the Marshal is able to effectuate service. 

Plaintiff’s failure to do so, as ordered below, will result in dismissal of the claims against

Hamlet pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and motion

for default judgment are hereby DENIED. 

If plaintiff fails to effectuate service on defendant James Hamlet or provide the Court

with his accurate current location, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed,

plaintiff’s claims against such defendant will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

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

This order terminates Docket Nos. 28 and 43. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04229-MMC Document 45 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 3