Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01273/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01273-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR A. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

PETE LABAHN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01273-YGR (PR)

NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO 

SERVE DEFENDANT DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER JAMES MARTIN

This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has 

been ineffective on Defendant Deputy Commissioner James Martin. In a letter dated December 

13, 2019, Deputy Attorney General C. Hay-Mie Cho informed Clerk’s Office staff as follows:

This letter is to advise you that currently, the Attorney General’s 

Office represents only Defendant Labahn in the above-referenced 

matter. We are informed that Mr. Martin “is no longer employed with 

the Board of Parole Hearings, and the Board does not have an address 

for him. As a result, Mr. Martin has not been served, and the Attorney 

General’s Office is unable to complete the waiver of service on his 

behalf.

Dkt. 15 at 1.

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with 

current addresses for 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 litigation must “attempt to remedy 

any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Id. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 90 days from the filing of the complaint, it 

may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if 

service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of 

the complaint, the action must be dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant absent a 

Case 4:19-cv-01273-YGR Document 16 Filed 01/03/20 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

showing of “good cause”); see also Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause 

why prison official should not dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he 

provided marshal with sufficient information to serve official).

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide 

the Court with a current address for Defendant Martin. Plaintiff should review the federal 

discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance about how to 

determine the current address of this Defendant.

If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current address of Defendant Martin within 

the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against this Defendant will be dismissed without 

prejudice under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

January 3, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-01273-YGR Document 16 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 2