Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02136/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02136-30/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB EFB P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this civil rights action in forma

pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The action proceeds on plaintiff’s June 14,

2004, amended complaint. The record shows that despite repeated efforts, plaintiff has been

unable to successfully serve process on defendants Mangis and Fernandez. Thus, as explained

below, this action must be dismissed with respect to these two defendants.

On October 13, 2005, the court initially directed that process be served on defendants Dr.

Mangis and Sgt. Fernandez. On December 1, 2005, process directed to Dr. Mangis at High

Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) was returned unexecuted because he could not be located. The

court gave plaintiff an opportunity to provide new information on the whereabouts of this

defendant. On January 26, 2006, process directed to defendant Sgt. Fernandez at HDSP was

returned unexecuted. The return noted that plaintiff had not provided sufficient information

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 154 Filed 07/10/07 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

2

about Sgt. Fernandez to identify him, the California Department of Corrections searched its

records, narrowed its search to both High Desert State Prison and California Institution for Men,

Chino, but could not locate a “Sgt. Fernandez.” The court gave plaintiff time to provide more

information about Sgt. Fernandez. On April 21, 2006, the court again directed service of process

on defendant Mangis. On May 12, 2006, process directed to Dr. Mangis at HDSP (specifying

the particular date and yard of his employment) was returned unexecuted. The return noted that

the papers were forwarded to this defendant’s new address, but that they were returned because

defendant could not be found there. Thus, the court gave plaintiff another opportunity to obtain

more information about Dr. Mangis. On August 18, 2006, the court directed service of process

on both Mangis and Fernandez. On November 6, 2006, process directed to Sgt. Fernandez at

California Institution for Men, Chino was returned unexecuted. The return notes that there are

too many employees with the surname “Fernandez” at California Institution for Men, Chino, to

identify the person plaintiff intends to sue. On November 15, 2006, process directed to “Phillip

George Mangis” in New Harmony, Utah was returned unexecuted with the explanation that he

had moved without leaving a forwarding address.

Service of process must be effected within 120 days of the filing of the complaint unless

plaintiff demonstrates good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In the three years since plaintiff filed

the amended complaint, the court has given plaintiff two opportunities to locate defendant

Fernandez and three opportunities to located defendant Mangis. With each opportunity, the

court has warned plaintiff that if these defendants are not served the action would be dismissed

with respect to them. It appears that plaintiff cannot provide a first name so that Sgt. Fernandez

can be identified. It appears that Dr. Mangis has moved without leaving a forwarding address. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice with respect to defendants Sgt. Fernandez and Dr. Mangis.

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 twenty days

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 154 Filed 07/10/07 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

3

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 9, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 154 Filed 07/10/07 Page 3 of 3