Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01529/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01529-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO GUZMAN REYEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANUEL TAJON, 

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01529-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This federal civil rights action will be dismissed because plaintiff Reyeros has failed 

to comply with the Court’s instructions to provide a current address for the sole defendant 

in this action, Manuel Tajon, or to show cause why the action should not be dismissed.

On March 9, 2018, Reyeros filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against Manuel Tajon, a psychologist once employed at Salinas Valley State Prison. On 

July 20, 2018, the Court issued an order of service. (Dkt. No. 9.) 

The service order was returned unserved because Tajon was no longer employed at 

Salinas Valley and could not be located by his former employer. (Dkt. No. 13.) The Court 

directed Reyeros to provide a current address for Tajon, in orders dated October 30, 2018 

and February 7, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 15 and 19.) In these orders, Reyeros was warned that if 

a complaint is not served within ninety days from the filing of the complaint, it may be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. (Dkt. 15 at 1; Dkt. 19 at 2) (citing Fed. 

Case 3:18-cv-01529-WHO Document 24 Filed 07/12/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

R. Civ. P. 4(m)). He was also informed that 

he is responsible for providing the court with current addresses for any and 

all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 

603 (7th Cir. 1990). While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States 

Marshal, or in this case, the procedure for requesting a defendant to waive 

the service requirement, ‘a plaintiff may not remain silent and do nothing to 

effectuate such service.’ Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 

1987). When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant

must ‘attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.’ 

Id.

(Dkt. No. 19 at 1-2.)

In March 2019, the Court granted Reyeros’s request for an extension of time and 

gave him until May 7, 2019 to provide a current address for Tajon. (Dkt. No. 21.) He was 

again warned that failure to respond by the new deadline would result in the dismissal of 

the suit. 

Reyeros has not responded to the Court’s order. Therefore, he has failed to show 

cause why this complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

See, e.g., Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the 

complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2019

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01529-WHO Document 24 Filed 07/12/19 Page 2 of 2