Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00528/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00528-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Raymond Hunt, Civil No. 11cv528 H (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO SERVE SUMMONS

AND SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT (DOC. 26.) 

vs.

M. Ramirez et al.,

Defendants.

On July 12, 2012, Plaintiff moved this Court for issuance of an Order directing the U.S.

Marshal to re-attempt service as to the remaining unserved defendant, T Marquez. (Doc. 26.) 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the

court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the

plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the

failure, the court shall extend time for service for an appropriate

period.

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order of

the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d) (in IFP proceedings, “[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and

cc: District Judge Huff; all parties 1 11cv528 H PCL

Case 3:11-cv-00528-H-PCL Document 27 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 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

perform all duties in such cases.”). “‘[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.’” 

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d

270, 275 (9thCir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472

(1995). In order to allow 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A to operate harmoniously with

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), where a necessary delay occurs, Rule 4(m)’s 120-day time for service

may be suspended for a time by the Court. See Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dept.,

91 F.3d 451, 459-60 (3rd Cir. 1996); see also Shabazz v. Franklin, 380 F. Supp. 2d 793, 799-

800 (N.D. Texas 2005); Warren v. Ruffcorn, 2001 WL 34043449 at *4 (D. Oregon 2001)

(unpublished). 

Here, Plaintiff failed to show good cause for his failure to affect service as to

Defendant T Marquez. Service was attempted as to T. Marquez but it was returned

unexecuted because “there is no registered nurse named T. Marquez working at Calipatria.”

(Doc. 15, at 1.) In his motion to re-attempt service as to Marquez, Plaintiff gives the same

address for T. Marquez at Calipatria State Prison but fails to give any reasons why this

person would be found there. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Directing U.S. Marshal

Service as to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2012

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: District Judge Huff; all parties 2 11cv528 H PCL

Case 3:11-cv-00528-H-PCL Document 27 Filed 07/19/12 Page 2 of 2