Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00459-4/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

MICHAEL GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00459-NONE-SAB (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS GONZALES 

AND CENA IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE 

SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 24)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 30, 2019, the Court found that service of Plaintiff’s complaint was appropriate 

as to Defendants Godinez, Cena, Gonzales, Harry, Villegas, Serato (or Serrato), Gonzalez, 

Shoemaker, Perez, Willis, Arron, Torres, and Harmon for providing Plaintiff with food tainted 

with involuntary antipsychotic medication without a Keyhea order in violation of the Due Process 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 13.)

On January 2, 2020, pursuant to the E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases in the 

Eastern District of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

returned a notice of intent to not waive personal service on Defendants Cena and Gonzales 

because there was not enough information provided and no such employee could be found. 

Case 1:19-cv-00459-JLT-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/03/20 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

Therefore, service was forwarded to the United States Marshals Service.

On February 18, 2020, the United States Marshal returned the USM-285 forms for 

Defendants Cena and Gonzales as unexecuted with a notation that, per the litigation coordinator 

at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendants Cena and Gonzales cannot be identified without more 

information. (ECF No. 24.)

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

If a defendant is not served within 90 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.

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

Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); 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 [he] 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) (internal 

quotations and citation omitted), 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. . . .” Id. (internal 

quotations and citation omitted). 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. Id. at 1421-22. 

At this time, the United States Marshal cannot serve Defendants Cena and Gonzales

without further identifying information. Therefore, the Court finds that is appropriate to require 

Plaintiff to provide the Court with further information sufficient to identify Defendants Cena and

Gonzales for service of process. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) 

days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written response providing the 

Case 1:19-cv-00459-JLT-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/03/20 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

Court with further information regarding Defendants Cena’s and Gonzales’s identities so that the 

U.S. Marshal can effect service of the summons and complaint on Defendants Cena and 

Gonzales. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation to a District 

Judge to dismiss Defendants Cena and Gonzales from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00459-JLT-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 3