Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01065-42/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. HARRISON, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al., 

 Defendants.

 Case No. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS DEFENDANTS ZAKARI, 

BASTIANON, EDMONDS, AND 

RAYGOZA FOR INSUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECT SERVICE OF 

PROCESS (ECF No. 227)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendants Jones, Moore, Burns, Dava, Kim, Edmonds, Galvan, C. Gonzalez, M. 

Gonzalez, Johnson, O’Neal, Parsons, Raygoza, Roth, Tumayo, Urbano, Vicente, Zakari, 

Bastianon, Casio, Cisneros, Campos, and Coronado on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

claims. (ECF No. 160.)

Service on Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza was returned 

unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 177, 179, 193 & 194.) In July 2014, Plaintiff was ordered to 

show cause why these Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to provide 

sufficient information for the Marshals to serve the summons and complaint. (ECF No. 

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 232 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

195.) Plaintiff responded and requested additional time to obtain responses to a 

pending motion to compel discovery of the full names of these Defendants (ECF Nos. 

197 & 198.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel in part and discharged the 

order to show cause. (ECF No. 199.) 

After Plaintiff failed to take further steps to effect service on Zakari, Bastianon, 

Edmonds, and Raygoza, the Court ordered him a second time on March 17, 2015 to 

show cause why these Defendants should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 227.) Plaintiff 

has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause, and the time period to do so has 

passed.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 

made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the 

failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon 

order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “An 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 . . . 

[he] should not be penalized by having 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) (internal quotations and citation omitted), 

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

(internal quotations and citation omitted). 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. Id., at 1421-22. 

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 232 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, Plaintiff has not offered any explanation why he has not and cannot provide 

information sufficient to effect service of process upon Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, 

Edmonds, and Raygoza. The obligation to do so is on Plaintiff, not Defendants. Id.

Absent additional information about said Defendants’ whereabouts, further attempts at 

service would be futile, and it appears that no further information will be forthcoming. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the undersigned FINDS that the avenues 

available to locate and serve Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza 

have been exhausted and RECOMMENDS that all four Defendants be dismissed from 

this action without prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to 

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 232 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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 4

Case 1:08-cv-01065-AWI-HBK Document 232 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 4