Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02086/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02086-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Unless otherwise noted, the Second Amended Complaint, filed March 7, 2005, will

be referred to herein as the “complaint.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARTHA CAMPOS, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-2086 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS

AGAINST REMAINING DEFENDANT

 

On May 26, 2004, plaintiff Charles Williams, a California prisoner currently

incarcerated in San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed the above-titled civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his constitutional rights while he was

housed at the Santa Rita County Jail (“Santa Rita”). Plaintiff twice amended his complaint. 

On October 19, 2004, after reviewing the Second Amended Complaint1

, the Court found

plaintiff had stated cognizable claims against defendants M. Inocencio, R.N. (“Inocencio”),

Horacio Campos, M.D. (“Dr. Horacio Campos”), Martha Campos, M.D. (“Dr. Martha

Campos”) and J. Pendleton, M.D. (“Dr. Pendleton”), all Santa Rita employees.

On September 27, 2006, the Court granted the summary judgment motion of

Inocencio, Dr. Horacio Campos, and Dr. Martha Campos. As Dr. Pendleton had not been

Case 3:04-cv-02086-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff evidently chose a different course of action; on October 25, 2006, he filed a

notice of appeal of the Court’s September 27, 2006 Order. 

2

served, the Court directed plaintiff to either “effect service on defendant Dr. Pendleton”

within thirty days or, within such time period, “provide the Court with an accurate current

location such that the Marshal is able to effect such service.” Plaintiff was advised that if he

failed to do so, the claims against him would be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. More than thirty days have passed and

plaintiff has not effected service upon Dr. Pendleton or provided the Court with his current

location.2

 Accordingly, the claims against Dr. Pendleton, the sole remaining defendant in

this matter, are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02086-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2