Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145-10/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

JESSE J. MONTIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv02145 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT WYNN 

FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jesse J. Montiel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 28, 2011. This action is 

proceeding against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, Wilson, Das and Wynn for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendants Taher-Pour and Wilson filed a motion for summary judgment on January 21, 

2014. The motion is currently pending.

On March 28, 2014, the Court directed the United States Marshal to attempt service a 

second time on Defendants Green and Das.

The Marshal was not able to locate Defendant Wynn and service was returned 

unexecuted on January 16, 2014. Therefore, on March 28, 2014, the Court issued an order to 

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 56 Filed 05/20/14 Page 1 of 3
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

show cause to Plaintiff why Defendant Wynn should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff was instructed to respond to the order to show cause within 

thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded to the order 

or otherwise contacted the Court.

DISCUSSION

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). “[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 [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. 

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 56 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 3
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

At this juncture, the Marshal’s Office has exhausted the avenues available to it in 

attempting to locate and serve Defendant Wynn.

1

 Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. Plaintiff was 

provided with an opportunity to show cause why Defendant Wynn should not be dismissed, but 

he did not respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Wynn be 

DISMISSED from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Assistance has been sought from the prison, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the 

Attorney General’s Office. 

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 56 Filed 05/20/14 Page 3 of 3