Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY SAMUEL CATO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05490-AWI-LJO-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

DEFENDANT JACKSON FROM ACTION

(Docs. 129 and 150)

Plaintiff Anthony Samuel Cato (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2005, the court issued

an order which, in relevant part, directed the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on

defendant Sergeant Jackson. (Doc. 96.) The Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendant

Jackson at California State Prison-Corcoran, the address provided by plaintiff. In accordance with

the court’s order, the Marshal contacted the Office of Legal Affairs, California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation, which provided defendant Jackson’s last known residential address.

On July 24, 2006, the Marshal returned the service packet un-executed. (Doc. 129.) The waiver,

mailed to defendant Jackson at his last known address on March 23, 2006, was not returned and

personal service, attempted on June 20, 2006, was unsuccessful because defendant Jackson no longer

resides at his last known address. (Id.) On August 17, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to show

cause why defendant Jackson should not be dismissed. (Doc. 150.) Plaintiff did not file a response

to the order.

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 159 Filed 11/15/06 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

 On October 4, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a second extension of time to comply with the court’s 1

order of April 27, 2006, which opened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiff to obtain identifying

information on the un-served defendants in this case, including Jackson, and required plaintiff to provide further

information to the court within ninety days. (Docs. 120, 153.) The October 4 motion for an extension of time is not

responsive to the court’s order to show cause and is not deemed to be a response. The court’s order of August 25,

2006, which granted plaintiff’s first extension of time, placed plaintiff on notice that the extension did not apply to

Jackson and that Jackson was subject to a separate order to show cause. (Doc. 151.) In any event, the motion does

not demonstrate good cause for any extension of time and, in a separate order issued concurrently with this order,

was denied. 

2

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

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

service for an appropriate period.

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 Jackson is no longer accurate

and the last known address provided by the Office of Legal Affairs for defendant Jackson is no

longer accurate. Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to show good cause why defendant

Jackson should not be dismissed, but he failed to do so. 

1

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 159 Filed 11/15/06 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

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), defendant Jackson 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: November 15, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 159 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 3