Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00540-7/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

LARRY D. THOMAS, CASE NO. CV-F-07-0540 AWI DLB PC

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT

vs. DEATHRIDGE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

J. DIAZ et al., (Doc. 16)

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Larry D. Thomas (“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

complaint, filed on April 6, 2007 against defendants Diaz, Rangel, Jordan and Deathridge. (Doc. 1). On

February 13, 2008, 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. 10). Plaintiff submitted the required documents on February 29, 2008, and on

March 13, 2008, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on four defendants.

(Doc. 13). The Marshal was unable to locate and serve defendant S. Deathridge and on April 28, 2008,

the Marshal returned the USM-285 form to the court. (Docs. 16). 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00540-BLW-MHW Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

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. 

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 addresses provided by plaintiff for defendant Deathridge is no longer

accurate, as it appears defendant no longer works at Pleasant Valley State Prison, and per the CDC

locator, there is “no address/unable to locate”. (Doc. 16.) If plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal

with the current address at which defendant Deathridge can be located, this defendant shall be dismissed

from the action, without prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court will provide plaintiff with the

opportunity to show cause why defendant Deathridge should not be dismissed from the action at this

time. 

///

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00540-BLW-MHW Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 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

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall show cause

why defendant Deathridge should not be dismissed from this action; and,

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in a

recommendation that defendant Deathridge be dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 1, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

d274kd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00540-BLW-MHW Document 17 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 3