Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00054-10/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

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BARRIOS, HERNANDEZ, WHITE, and 

GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00054-HBK (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT GUTIERREZ SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 

SERVICE

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Durrell Anthony Puckett (“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 proceeds

against Defendants J. Barrios, Hernandez, White and Gutierrez for unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On June 26, 2023, the Court issued a second order directing service on Defendant

Gutierrez via the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 

California. (Doc. No. 35). The order included the following information regarding Defendant 

Gutierrez: “Correctional Officer at CSP-Corcoran, who worked 3rd watch (5) days a week on 

3A03 2021 Jan-Feb. He was Officer Dustin White’s partner. (Id. at 2). On August 8, 2023, the 

Court received information from CDCR that Defendant Gutierrez could not be identified. (Doc. 

No. 39). On October 2, 2023, the Court received information from the U.S. Marshal that 

Defendant Gutierrez could not be identified. (Doc. No. 40). 

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 45 Filed 10/05/23 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 

within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the 

court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[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 or her action dismissed 

for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 

duties required of each of them . . . .” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). “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 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 

(1995). 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 defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22.

Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to electronically serve Defendant Gutierrez with the 

information that Plaintiff provided. However, the Marshal was informed that there was not 

enough information to identify Defendant Gutierrez for service of process. If Plaintiff is unable 

to provide the Marshal with the necessary information to identify and locate this defendant, 

Defendant Gutierrez shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 

why Defendant Gutierrez should not be dismissed without prejudice from the action at this time. 

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why Defendant Gutierrez should not be dismissed from this action; and

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 45 Filed 10/05/23 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

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the dismissal 

of any unidentified defendant from this action, due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve process 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Dated: October 4, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00054-HBK Document 45 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 3