Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01511/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01511-0/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 - 06cv1511

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY SHAWN JANOE,

[CDC # J25333]

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06 CV 1511 JM (CAB) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SERVICE OF

COMPLAINT BY UNITED STATES

MARSHAL

vs.

DEE STONE, et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiff in this § 1983 action is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. In its September 11, 2006

order, the court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the United States

Marshal to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Docket No. 3. 

In a letter to the court dated December 18, 2006 and filed January 8, 2007, Plaintiff expressed

concern that his § 1983 complaint had not yet been served on Defendants. See Docket No. 13. The

court construes the letter as a motion for service of the complaint by the United States Marshal. 

After reviewing the docket, it appears that the United States Marshal was purportedly unable

to effect service on any of the Defendants with the exception of defendant Dee Stone. The stated

reason for failure to effect service was that Plaintiff had provided post office box addresses for each

of the Defendants and that the “USM doesn’t serve process to P.O. Box address.” See Docket Nos.

5-9. However, the Marshal was able to effect service with respect to Dee Stone at a post office box

address. See Docket No. 10. 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 14 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 06cv1511

“[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 having provided the necessary information

to help effectuate service, plaintiff should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed for

failure to effectuate service.” 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 of process is automatically good cause within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Although Plaintiff is not seeking an extension of time pursuant to Rule 4(m), the principles of

Puett and Walker readily apply here. Plaintiff has provided the Marshal with an address for service

on each defendant. The fact that these addresses are post office boxes is of no moment. It is the

court’s understanding that the Marshal routinely effectuates service to defendants’ post office boxes.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The court ORDERS the Marshal to effectuate

service pursuant to the form 285 documents already submitted by Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

United States Marshal 

Case 3:06-cv-01511-JM-WVG Document 14 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 2