Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06464-14/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

ABRAHAM ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. COFFEE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06464-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT WILSON

FROM ACTION PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M)

FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE OF

PROCESS

(Docs. 16 and 42)

Plaintiff Abraham Romero (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California tort law. This action

is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint, filed August 25, 2003, against defendants Coffee, Wilson,

Baptiste, and Samms (“defendants”) under section 1983 for use of excessive force in violation of the

Eighth Amendment, and under California law for assault and battery. 

On November 23, 2005, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court issued

an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why defendant Wilson should not be dismissed from this

action based on plaintiff’s failure to furnish information sufficient for the Marshal to identify and

serve defendant. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff filed a response on December 22, 2005, and on February 23,

2006, the court discharged the order to show cause. (Docs. 39, 42.) Plaintiff was informed that if

he obtained further identifying information on defendant Wilson, through discovery or other means,

he could notify the court and the court would direct the Marshal to attempt re-service. (Doc. 42.)

Plaintiff was warned that once the action was either resolved via a pre-trial dispositive motion or

reached the point at which a trial date was set, defendant Wilson would be dismissed, without

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 67 Filed 10/04/07 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

prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m), if plaintiff had not provided the court with any additional

information on defendant Wilson. 

The discovery phase of this litigation is closed, the pretrial dispositive motion deadline has

passed, and this matter is set for jury trial. Accordingly, the time within which plaintiff had to notify

the court of further identifying information for defendant Wilson has passed, and pursuant to Rule

4(m), defendant Wilson is HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice,

for failure to effect service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06464-SMS Document 67 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2