Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00867/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00867-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERRY LEE SISCO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0867 GEB JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 28, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve

process on defendants. Process directed to defendants Beruth, Schmidt, Spears and Falconer was

returned unexecuted. By orders filed December 21, 2005, this court ordered plaintiff to complete

and return to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on

defendants Beruth, Schmidt, Spears, and Falconer. The sixty day period expired and plaintiff did

not comply with the court’s order. Accordingly, on March 8, 2006, this court recommended that

plaintiff’s claims against said defendants be dismissed from the action without prejudice.

On April 17, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On June 14, 2006, the court vacated the findings and recommendations and granted plaintiff an

additional period of sixty days in which to return the forms necessary for service of process on

Case 2:05-cv-00867-GEB -JFM Document 39 Filed 12/22/06 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

 On October 16, 2006, plaintiff submitted two copies of the May 2, 2005 complaint and 1

one USM-285 form. These documents are insufficient to comply with the June 14, 2006 order. 

2

defendants Beruth, Schmidt, Spears, and Falconer. That sixty period has also passed, and

plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order. Moreover, more than 120 days have elapsed 1

during which time plaintiff was responsible for providing information necessary to serve these

four defendants and he has failed to do so. Accordingly, the claims against these defendants

should be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Walker v. Sumner, 14

F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9 Cir. 1994). th

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendants

Beruth, Schmidt, Spears and Falconer be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 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).

DATED: December 21, 2006.

12;sisc0867.fusm(2)

Case 2:05-cv-00867-GEB -JFM Document 39 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2