Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01037/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01037-3/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROSSER, Civil No. 10-1037-JAH(WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE IN

SERVING COMPLAINT AND

SUMMONS UPON DEFENDANT

MENDEZ; AND

(2) GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS H.

SANCHEZ AND MENDEZ

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

[Doc. No. 43]

v.

H. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

On May 12, 2010, Larry Rosser (“Plaintiff’), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the

High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 14, 2010, the Court found that the claims in

Plaintiff’s Complaint were sufficient to survive the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and directed the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to effect

service on Plaintiff’s behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). 

On the following day, the Clerk issued a summons and prepared an “IFP package,”

including certified copies of Plaintiff’s Complaint, a U.S. Marshal Form 285 (“USMS Form

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 5
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

285”) for each Defendant named in the Complaint, and a copy of the Court’s Order granting

Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. See Puett v. Blandford, 895 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1990) (“An

incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

for service of summons and complaint.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(a), (c)(3).

The Summons to Defendant Mendez was returned unexecuted. According to the USMS,

it was informed by the litigation coordinator at Donovan State Prison that Defendant Mendez

was not employed at that institution. Therefore, Plaintiff now moves the Court for the California

Department of Corrections to provide him with Defendant Mendez’s current address. The

California Department of Corrections has refused to give Plaintiff Defendant Mendez’s current

address.

On November 1, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion For

Court Order Directing California Department of Corrections to Supply Plaintiff with Defendant

H. Sanchez’s and Mendez’s Current Address.

On November 8, 2010, the Nield Law Group filed an Ex Parte Motion to Extend Time

to Respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The Ex Parte Motion was filed on behalf

of all the Defendants that had been served at that time.

On November 9, 2010, the Attorney General for the State of California informed the

Court that it does not represent the California Department of Corrections nor any of the

individual defendants in this case, but that the California Department of Corrections and the

individual Defendants will be represented by private counsel.

On or about January 6, 2011, Plaintiff moved the Court for assistance in serving

Defendant Mendez with the Complaint and Summons in this case.

I. FED.R.CIV.P. 4 Service Rules

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

[i]f 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.

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/24/11 Page 2 of 5
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

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)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

“‘[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,

912 F.2d at 275), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 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; see also Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th

Cir. 1987) (noting that plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such

service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge”). Here,

because Plaintiff has not yet been able to ascertain the proper location where Defendant Mendez

may now be served, he must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims against

Defendant Mendez. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (holding prisoner failed to show cause why

prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had

provided Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate service). 

Accordingly, as long as Defendant Mendez’s current and/or forwarding addresses can be

easily ascertained by reference to the CDCR’s personnel records, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on

the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendant Mendez on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d

at 275. The Court hereby directs Defendants’ attorney to contact the California Department of

Corrections’ Legal Affairs Division, and provide Defendant Mendez’s current and/or forwarding

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/24/11 Page 3 of 5
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

4

address within the California Department of Corrections records or possession, and to forward

that address to the USMS in a confidential memorandum.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS Defendants’

attorney to provide the forwarding address for Defendant Mendez to the U.S. Marshal in a

confidential memorandum indicating that the summonses and complaint are to be delivered to

that address. Defendant’s attorney shall provide the U.S. Marshal with any such information on

or before February 24, 2011.

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of any available address from Defendants’ attorney,

the Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and summons

upon Defendant Mendez. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant

to the Court’s July 14, 2010 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and directing service

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of: (1) the

Court’s July 14, 2010 Order; (2) this Order; (3) the Complaint, summons and a blank U.S.

Marshal Form 285 to Defendants’ attorney for purposes of re-attempting service as to Defendant

Mendez. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2011

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/24/11 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case 3:10-cv-01037-JAH-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/24/11 Page 5 of 5