Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04003/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04003-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIE CURTIS WILSON, E87178, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM L. MUNIZ, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 17-cv-04003-CRB (PR) 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On October 18, 2017, while plaintiff was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison 

(SVSP), he filed a pro se First Amended Complaint (FAC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 

delay/denial of a Kosher religious diet/meals after he arrived at SVSP on August 31, 2016. 

On December 21, 2017, the court found that plaintiff’s allegations of delay/denial of a 

Kosher religious diet/meals appear to state arguably cognizable claims under § 1983 against the 

two named defendants – SVSP Warden William L. Muniz and SVSP supervising cook B. 

Hardigee – and ordered the United States Marshal to serve them. The court also granted plaintiff’s 

request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The marshal’s office was able to serve Muniz at SVSP, but not Hardigee. It reportedly 

was told that there was no such person at SVSP. And after the court asked the Attorney General 

of California to secure a waiver of service from B. Hardigee, a correctional supervising cook at 

SVSP in 2016, the attorney general’s office recently responded that SVSP personnel staff have no 

record of a B. Hardigee currently or previously working at SVSP. 

If service of the complaint is not made upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of the 

complaint, the action must be dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant absent a showing of 

“good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Because plaintiff’s FAC has been pending for more than 90 

days, it is subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m). And although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and 

Case 3:17-cv-04003-CRB Document 42 Filed 06/21/18 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 Californi

a

proceeding IFP may rely on service by the marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do 

nothing to effectuate such service;” rather, “[a]t 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 through no fault of his own, for example, because plaintiff failed to provide 

sufficient information or because the defendant is not where plaintiff claims, and plaintiff is 

informed, plaintiff must seek to remedy the situation or face dismissal. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 

F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 

472 (1995). 

Because B. Hardigee is not where plaintiff claims and plaintiff has not provided sufficient 

and/or current information to allow the marshal to locate and serve Hardigee, plaintiff must 

remedy the situation or face dismissal without prejudice of his claims against Hardigee. See id. 

Accordingly, plaintiff must provide the court and marshal with sufficient and current information 

for Hardigee such that the marshal is able to effect service upon Hardigee. Failure to do so within 

28 days of this order will result in the dismissal without prejudice of the claims against Hardigee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 21, 2018 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-04003-CRB Document 42 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 2