Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04755/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04755-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE GIURBINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04755-YGR (PR)

NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS RUFF AND

CHAUS

This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has 

been ineffective on Defendants Mike Ruff and Anthony Chaus, Chiefs at the Office of 

Correctional Safety (“OCS”) of the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”). The Court 

has been informed that Defendants Ruff and Chaus “are no longer employed by CDCR.” Dkts. 

15, 16. The OCS Litigation Coordinator adds: “Both staff members have retired from CDCR and 

I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to contact them.” Dkt. 16 at 1.

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with 

current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990). 

While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States 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). If the marshal is unable to 

effectuate service and the plaintiff is so informed, the plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or 

face dismissal of the claims regarding that defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if service of the summons and complaint is not made 

upon a defendant in 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the action must be dismissed

Case 4:15-cv-04755-YGR Document 18 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

without prejudice as to that defendant absent a showing of “good cause”); see also Walker, 14 

F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under 

Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he provided marshal with sufficient information to 

serve official). 

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide 

the Court with a current address for Defendants Ruff and Chaus. Plaintiff should review the 

federal discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance about 

how to determine the current address of these Defendants.

If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current address of Defendants Ruff and 

Chaus within the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against these Defendants will be dismissed 

without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04755-YGR Document 18 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2