Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01375/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01375-9/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEVIN B. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNKNOWN FBI AGENTS, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01375 KJM SCR P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a former county inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. §1983. On September 17, 2024, this court ordered plaintiff to file within 21 days either: 

(1) proof that he has completed service on defendants in the manner required by Rule 4(i)(1)(B); 

or (2) a response to this order to show cause setting forth the status of service on defendants and 

any good cause reasons why plaintiff has not effectuated service of process under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to demonstrate proper service of process 

or show good cause for his failure to effect service would result in a recommendation that this 

case be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 67.) In an order filed October 25, 2024, this court 

granted plaintiff an additional 21 days from the date of the order to comply with the September 17 

order. (ECF No. 69.) Twenty-one days have passed and plaintiff has not filed that response. 

In the September 17 order, this court reviewed the background of this case. Briefly, in 

late 2022, plaintiff paid the filing fee and the Clerk of the Court issued summons for plaintiff to 

serve the defendants. In January 2024, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why 

Case 2:22-cv-01375-KJM-SCR Document 70 Filed 12/03/24 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 

2 

defendants had not been served and why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

The court informed plaintiff that “defendants identified by plaintiff as ‘unknown FBI agents’ are 

required to be served pursuant to the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(i).” (ECF No. 58.) After the court granted plaintiff two extensions of time, in May 2024 

plaintiff filed a document entitled “Proof of Service” in which he states that he placed the 

summons and complaint in the U.S. mail addressed to “United States Attorney Civil Processing.” 

(ECF No. 65.) 

In the September 17 order, this court explained the service requirements for unknown 

federal officers. Because plaintiff had partially complied with Rule 4(i), this court gave plaintiff 

another opportunity to properly serve defendants. Plaintiff was given 21 days to either complete 

service or show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 67.) 

Plaintiff was warned that this court would recommend dismissal of this case if he did not 

comply with the September 17 order. Because he has not done so, this court will recommend this 

case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to timely serve defendants. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m). 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed 

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Procedure 4(m). 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 3, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01375-KJM-SCR Document 70 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2