Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00813-13/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT KEITH ERNST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID FRANCES RAMOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0813 DAD AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On October 25, 2023, the court ordered service of the complaint on defendant Beeck1

 via 

the court’s e-service program. ECF No. 31. The attempt at service was unsuccessful, and after 

plaintiff requested assistance in locating Beeck, counsel for defendants Ashe, Miller, Nelson, 

Singh, Ramos, and Wong was ordered to make a good faith inquiry into defendant Beeck’s last 

known address. ECF Nos. 37, 45, 52. Plaintiff was cautioned that he was not absolved of 

responsibility in continuing to attempt to locate Beeck, and that in the event the United States 

Marshal remained unable to locate Beeck for service, it would be recommended that she be 

dismissed. ECF No. 52 at 2. 

Defense counsel provided a last known address and what was believed to be defendant’s 

professional license number. ECF No. 58. The court then ordered service on Beeck using the 

1

 Defendant Beeck was identified as Amelia “Beek” in the complaint. ECF No. 29. Her name 

was later updated to “Beck” based on the information contained in the CDCR Notice of E-Service 

Waiver. ECF No. 38. Defense counsel later provided information stating that defendant’s name 

is “Amalia Beeck.” ECF No. 58. 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 81 Filed 12/06/24 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 

information provided, but process was returned unserved because defendant was unable to be 

located. ECF Nos. 59, 72. The process receipt reflects that the United States Marshal attempted 

service at the address provided and a resident confirmed that defendant was a previous resident in 

2020 and “might live in Lodi.” ECF No. 72. A search of defendant in the registered nursing 

registry identified her current city as San Jose but provided no other information. By order filed 

September 18, 2024, the court determined that the Marshals had fulfilled their obligation to 

attempt to locate defendant Beeck and directed plaintiff to provide any additional information he 

may discovered regarding her location. ECF No. 74. Plaintiff was cautioned that if he was 

unable to provide any additional information, it would be recommended that Beeck be dismissed 

for failure to complete service. Id. 

Plaintiff then objected to the order, stating that he did not believe the United States 

Marshal had done their job properly because it should be easy to locate anyone who has a job in 

California. ECF No. 75 at 11-13. However, he has not provided any additional information 

regarding Beeck’s location, and the time to do so has now expired. The court finds that plaintiff 

has failed to timely serve defendant or show good cause why defendant Beeck should not be 

dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (when a defendant has not been served within ninety days 

after the complaint is filed the court must dismiss the action against that defendant unless plaintiff 

can show good cause for the failure). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Beeck be dismissed from 

this action for failure to effect timely service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

 These findings and recommendations are 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-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 81 Filed 12/06/24 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 

3 

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 5, 2024 

Case 2:21-cv-00813-DAD-AC Document 81 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 3