Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05969/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05969-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY L. COX, CASE NO. CV-F-01-5969 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

vs. ACTION 

DR. ANDRADA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on

September 12, 2002. On February 19, 2003, the court ordered plaintiff to provide information to

facilitate service of process on defendants by filling out and submitting to the court a USM-285 form

and a summons for each defendant to be served. Plaintiff submitted the required documents on March

6, 2003, and on April 9, 2003, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service on

defendants. On May 13, 2003 and May 19, 2003, the Marshal returned the documents to the Court as

they were unable to locate and serve the defendants.

On December 20, 2006, plaintiff responded to the Court’s order to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff was unable to provide additional information

to effect service of the summons and complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

Case 1:01-cv-05969-AWI -DLB Document 55 Filed 02/01/08 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

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days

after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after

notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or

direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows

good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate

period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon order

of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “‘[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 ... 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) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir.

1990)), 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 . . . .’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d

598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). 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. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 

In this instance, the information provided by plaintiff for service was insufficient. Plaintiff was

provided with the opportunity to provide additional information and to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), it is HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 1:01-cv-05969-AWI -DLB Document 55 Filed 02/01/08 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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 1, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05969-AWI -DLB Document 55 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 3