Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03425/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03425-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

ARMEN YAPUNDZHYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-03425-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS LEWIS, SHERMAN, 

GAUCH, WILLIAMS, AND BATTER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court issued an Order of Service. Defendants G. Lewis, B. Sherman, G. Gauch, A. Williams, 

and Batter have not been served in this action. 

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), 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). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120 

days from the filing of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. 

When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must “attempt 

to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 

1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the Marshal is unable to effectuate service through no fault of his own, 

e.g., because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information, the plaintiff must seek to remedy 

the situation or face dismissal. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause why 

complaint against prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not 

prove that he provided Marshal with sufficient information to serve official or that he requested that 

official be served).

Case 4:12-cv-03425-YGR Document 32 Filed 01/14/15 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

In an Order dated November 10, 2014, the Court informed Plaintiff that service had been 

ineffective on Defendants Lewis, Sherman, Gauch, Williams, and Batter and directed Plaintiff to 

provide the Court with the current addresses for these Defendants within twenty-eight days of the 

Order. Twenty-eight days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the 

aforementioned required information. 

This action has been pending for over 120 days, and service upon Defendants Lewis, 

Sherman, Gauch, Williams, and Batter has not been effectuated. Plaintiff has failed to show cause 

why the claims against these Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 4(m). Accordingly, all claims against Defendants Lewis, Sherman, Gauch, Williams, and 

Batter are DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

January 14, 2015

Case 4:12-cv-03425-YGR Document 32 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 2