Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04267/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04267-2/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

SERGIO A. ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

Y. SIMMONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04267-EMC 

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

AND REGARDING SERVICE ON 

DEFENDANT DORFMAN

Docket No. 22

Plaintiff’s request for a 60-day extension of the deadline to file his opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Docket No. 22. The Court now sets 

the following new briefing schedule: Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment no later than March 13, 2020. No further extensions of this deadline should 

be expected. Defendants must file and serve their reply, if any, no later than March 27, 2020. 

There will not be a hearing on the motion because the motion will be decided on the papers filed

by the parties.

The Court ordered service of process on five Defendants, only four of whom have 

appeared. Dr. A. Dorfman has not yet been served or appeared in this action. After attempting 

service of process, the U.S. Marshal filed a “process receipt and return” form stating that Dr. 

Dorfman could not be served based on the information provided. Docket No. 18. Specifically, the 

Marshal reported: “according to PBSP, they attempted contacting defendant several times. Cannot 

locate him.” Id. In response to the Court’s inquiry, counsel for the other four Defendants reported

that Dr. Dorfman was no longer employed by the State of California, and that the State was not 

authorized to accept service on behalf of Dr. Dorfman and had not been retained to represent him. 

Docket No. 19.

Case 3:18-cv-04267-EMC Document 23 Filed 01/17/20 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

“If a defendant is not served within 90 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.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Where a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis and must rely on the 

Marshal for service of process, “[s]o long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary 

to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service ‘is automatically good cause’ for 

not effectuating timely service.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), 

overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see e.g., id. (district court 

did not err in dismissing defendant where plaintiff “did not prove that he provided the marshal 

with sufficient information to serve” this particular defendant or that he requested service).

Service of process has not occurred within ninety days of the date the court ordered service 

of process on Dr. Dorfman. Although it is the Marshal’s duty to serve process when a prisonerplaintiff is proceeding as a pauper, the Marshal’s ability to do so depends on a plaintiff providing 

sufficient information about a defendant for the Marshal to find the defendant to serve him or her. 

Accordingly, no later than March 6, 2020, Plaintiff must provide a current address at which 

Defendant Dr. Dorfman may be served with process. It is Plaintiff’s obligation, not the Court’s, to 

gather this information. In the alternative to providing the information, Plaintiff must show cause 

by that same deadline why he has not provided the information needed to locate Dr. Dorfman and 

serve process on him. If Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient information to enable service of 

process to be accomplished on Dr. Dorfman, Dr. Dorfman will be dismissed without prejudice 

unless Plaintiff shows cause for his failure to provide the information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04267-EMC Document 23 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2