Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01448/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01448-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Muhammad Nuriddin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens actions and actions 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a 

federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).

 On October 1, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause why Defendants Miller and Bell 

should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 23.) 

Plaintiff filed a response on October 23, 2014. (ECF No. 26.)

When personal service was attempted on Defendant Bell on August 8, 2014, the Human 

Resources Department at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater reported that Assistant Warden 

John Bell died on May 14, 2012. (ECF No. 20.) 

MUHAMMAD NURIDDIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ESTRELLA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01448-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT BELL SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUBSTITUTION AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

THIRTY DAYS TO MAKE PROPER 

SUBSTITUTION 

[ECF Nos. 23, 36]

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 03/20/15 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

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and requested an extension of time to file a 

motion for substitution. (ECF No. 26.) On January 14, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to 

file a request to file a motion for substitution. (ECF NO. 33.) Plaintiff filed a motion for substitution 

on February 25, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to substitute the “unknown” wife of Defendant Bell as the successor or 

representative of the decedent’s estate. Plaintiff requests the Court substitute the “unknown” wife or 

“grant Plaintiff the opportunity to find the address and or telephone number of the unknown wife of 

the Defendant A. W. Bell the decedent, to attempt proper service upon the substitution Defendant.” 

While Plaintiff may seek to substitute the proper party for Defendant Bell, it is Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to identify the party, make the substitution, and provide sufficient information for the 

Marshal to locate the party for service. Neither the Court nor the Marshal may conduct an 

investigation on Plaintiff’s behalf to determine this information. Nor will the Court grant Plaintiff an 

infinite period of time to discover such information. The Court will discharge the order to show cause 

and allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to substitute the proper party in light of Defendant Bell’s 

death and provide that party’s address for service. If Plaintiff fails to make the proper substitution and 

provide a current address for service within thirty days from the date of service of this order, 

Defendant Bell will be dismissed from this action. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, filed October 1, 2014, is DISCHARGED; and

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall make the proper 

substitution and provide a current address for service on the proper party for Defendant 

Bell or he will be dismissed from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB Document 39 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2