Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00090/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00090-10/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELONZA JESSE TYLER, 1:06-cv-00090-LJO-DLB (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

vs. DEFENDANT STILES FROM ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

E. ROCHA, et al., (Docs. 27, 29, 30)

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Elonza Tyler(“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 amended

complaint, filed on December 16, 2006. (Doc. 11.) On October 12, 2007, 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. 13.) Plaintiff submitted

the required documents on November 2, 2007, and on November 21, 2007, the court directed the United

States Marshal to initiate service on five defendants. (Docs. 14, 15.) Four of the five defendants

subsequently made an appearance in this action. However, the Marshal was unable to locate and serve

defendant Stiles, and on February 21, 2008, the Marshal returned the USM-285 form to the court. (Doc.

22.) On March 7, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within thirty days why defendant Stiles

should not be dismissed from this action. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff filed responses to the order on March 10,

Case 1:06-cv-00090-BLW -MHW Document 36 Filed 08/04/08 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

17 and 21, 2008 (Docs. 27, 29, 30.). 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a

foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1). 

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 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) (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 address provided by plaintiff for defendant Stiles is no longer accurate as the

defendant retired, and the forwarding address indicated in CDCR’s records is no longer accurate. (Doc.

22.) Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to show cause why defendant Stiles should not be

dismissed from the action, and on March 10, 2008, plaintiff filed motions for a court order directing the

CDCR and the State Medical Board to produce defendant Stiles’ employment and home addresses.

(Docs. 27, 29). On March 21, 2008, plaintiff filed a further response to the court’s order to show cause,

stating that he is unable to locate defendant Stiles, and would not object to the undersigned’s

recommendation to dismiss defendant Stiles from the action, without prejudice. (Doc. 30).

///

Case 1:06-cv-00090-BLW -MHW Document 36 Filed 08/04/08 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 address on file at CDCR for defendant Stiles is no longer accurate. With respect to the State

Medical Board officials, the Court has no jurisdiction over state officials. 28 U.S.C. § 1651; see also

Demos v. United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. Of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991). Even

if the court could order the State Medical Board to assist, plaintiff states in his complaint that defendant

Stiles is a Correctional Counselor, and it is unclear how such a court order directed at the State Medical

Board would be of any assistance. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for a court order

compelling the State Medical Board and the CDCR to produce defendant Stiles’ address be denied, and

that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), defendant Stiles be dismissed from this action, without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

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

with the court. The 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00090-BLW -MHW Document 36 Filed 08/04/08 Page 3 of 3