Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355-15/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

By separate order issued herewith, the court’s February 7, 2006, order to show 1

cause is discharged as having been issued in error as to defendant “CDC Deputy Director.” The

court’s records reveal that this defendant was served, but has failed to respond to the complaint. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLASS W. HYSELL, No. CIV S-04-0355-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

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

July 13, 2004. Defendants Woodford, Johnson, Hamad, Carlson, Jackson, Hill, Pliler,

Goldsmith, and Rosario appeared in the action on August 17, 2005, by way of their answer filed

on August 17, 2005. The court determined that the second amended complaint was also

appropriate for service on defendants Grant, Wiley, and “CDC Deputy Director.” On November

22, 2005, the summonses were returned unexecuted as to defendants Grant and Wiley. In light

of this procedural history, the court issued an order on February 7, 2006, directing plaintiff to

show cause why unserved defendants should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal. Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff responded on February 17, 2006. 1

As to defendants Grant and Wiley, plaintiff concedes that these defendants have

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 85 Filed 02/28/06 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

2

not been served. Moreover, on June 21, 2005, the court issued an order providing plaintiff with

instructions for obtaining additional information for service from such sources as discovery and

the California Public Records Act. Therefore, plaintiff has had ample opportunity to provide the

court with additional information in order to effect service on Grant and Wiley. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), an action shall be dismissed as against any defendant who

is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed. This action was deemed appropriate

for service on March 28, 2005, and, to date, defendants Grant and Wiley have not been served.

The court finds that the action should now be dismissed as to these unserved defendants.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed as against defendants Grant and Wiley pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(m).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: February 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 85 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2