Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00217-5/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

JOHN M. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY BOARD

 OF SUPERVISORS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06217 AWI SMS P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFENDANT WIEDMAN SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FROM THE ACTION

 John M. Wilson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 14, 2005, in the Sacramento Division of the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Court found that service was

appropriate and directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms to complete

for service. Plaintiff submitted the forms and on November 15, 2006, the Court directed the U.S.

Marshal to effect service. On January 20, 2006, the U.S. Marshal returned the summons to the

Court as executed as to Defendant Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors. However, the

Case 1:06-cv-00217-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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

summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Wiedman. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within

120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as

to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time;

provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United

States Marshal, upon order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ.

Pro. 4(c)(2). 

As noted above, the U.S. Marshal returned the summons to be served on Defendant

Wiedman to the Court unexecuted indicating that he no longer worked for the County and the

County could not accept service on his behalf. The responsibility to provide accurate

information belongs to Plaintiff. The U.S. Marshal is required to serve on Plaintiff’s behalf using

only the information provided by Plaintiff. They are not required to do an independent

investigation to find more current or accurate information than that provided by Plaintiff. 

“‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the

U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having

his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has

failed to perform his duties.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting

Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v.

Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary

to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . .

..’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th

Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the court’s sua sponte

dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 

As noted above, the information provided by Plaintiff was insufficient to allow the U.S.

Marshal to serve Defendant Wiedman. Accordingly, the Court will provided Plaintiff the

Case 1:06-cv-00217-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 Should Plaintiff have more current information on the whereabouts of the unserved Defendant, he should 1

provide it to the Court at this time. 

3

opportunity to Show Cause why Defendant Wiedman should not be dismissed from the action. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within TWENTY (20) days of the

date of service of this Order, why Defendant Wiedman should not be dismissed

from the action for lack of service. 

1

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to show cause may result in a recommendation that

Defendant Wiedman be dismissed from the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00217-LJO -SMS Document 27 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 3