Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00713/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00713-3/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff John T. Misko (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint filed on December 27, 2010, against Defendants Cleinlin, Priest, Williams and 

Tate for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On December 13, 2011, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to 

attempt service of process upon Defendants Cleinlin, Priest, Williams, and Tate using the assistance of 

the CDCR’s Department of Legal Affairs. (ECF No. 18.) The Marshal was successful in serving 

Defendants Priest and Tate, but unsuccessful in serving Defendants Cleinlin and Williams. (ECF Nos. 

25, 31.) On June 20, 2012, the Court directed the Marshal to serve Defendant Cleinlin with a copy of a 

document signed by Defendant Cleinlin. (ECF No. 27.) On November 19, 2012, a copy of the 

summons for Defendant Cleinlin was returned unexecuted. (ECF No. 29.) On November 21, 2012, the 

JOHN T. MISKO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00713-BAM PC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE (ECF No. 40)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING COURT TO ORDER SERVICE OF 

DEFENDANTS BASED ON NEW 

INFORMATION (ECF No. 41)

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 09/23/13 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

Court issued an order for Plaintiff to provide information to enable service of process upon Defendant 

Cleinlin. Plaintiff was ordered to respond within thirty days. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the Court’s order. On February 1, 2013, a copy of the summons for Defendant Williams 

was returned unexecuted. (ECF No. 31.) 

As Defendants Cleinlin and Williams remained unserved in this action, the Court issued an 

order on August 27, 2013, directing Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants Cleinlin and Williams 

should not be dismissed from the action at this time. (ECF No. 40.) 

On September 20, 2013, in response to the Court’s show cause order, Plaintiff filed a motion 

requesting that the Court order service of Defendants Cleinlin and Williams based on new 

information. Plaintiff submitted information identifying Defendant Cleinlin as X. Ceiline, with a 

physical description, her job position and dates of employment. Plaintiff also identified Defendant 

Williams by her physical description, job position and dates of employment. (ECF No. 41.) 

Based on Plaintiff’s response, the order to show cause is HEREBY DISCHARGED and 

Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing service is HEREBY GRANTED. By separate order, the Court 

will direct the United States Marshal Service to serve Defendants Cleinlin (Ceiline) and Williams 

based on the new information. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM Document 42 Filed 09/23/13 Page 2 of 2