Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT PLATA SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 

SERVICE

(ECF No. 61)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“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 proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata 

(formerly John Doe 1) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the 

incident on January 4, 2020.

On March 23, 2022, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendant Plata in this 

case under the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 

California. (ECF No. 48.) The order included the following information regarding Defendant 

Plata: “Plata, Correctional Officer; California State Prison – Corcoran; January 4, 2020.” (Id. at 

2.) On April 26, 2022, the Court received information that Defendant Plata could not be 

identified.

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 77 Filed 06/27/22 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

Accordingly, on April 27, 2022 the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why 

Defendant Plata should not be dismissed from this action for failure to provide sufficient 

information to effectuate service. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff filed a response providing additional 

information to identify Defendant Plata, and the Court discharged the order to show cause and 

ordered a second attempt at electronic service. (ECF Nos. 59–61.) The E-Service order included 

the following information regarding Defendant Plata: “Plata, Correctional Officer; California 

State Prison – Corcoran; 4A2R Rotunda and 4A2R/Left ICC Room; January 4, 2020; related to 

Appeal #5-20-00062 filed by Roderick William Lear.” (ECF No. 61-1, p. 2.)

On June 14, 2022, the Court received information from CDCR that Defendant Plata could 

not be identified, and service documents were forwarded to the United States Marshal. (ECF No. 

74.) On June 24, 2022, the United States Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to 

Defendant Plata. (ECF No. 75.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 

within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the 

court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

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

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[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 or her action dismissed 

for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 

duties required of each of them . . . .” 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 is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 

(1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 77 Filed 06/27/22 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

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte

dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22.

Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to electronically and personally serve Defendant Plata

with the information that Plaintiff provided. However, the Marshal was informed by the 

Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran that records were thoroughly searched and no employees by 

the name of “Plata” or “Piata” could be found. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff therefore has not 

provided sufficient information to identify and locate Defendant Plata for service of process. If 

Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with the necessary information to identify and locate 

this defendant, Defendant Plata shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 

why Defendant Plata should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may respond 

to this order by providing additional information that will assist the Marshal in identifying 

Defendant Plata for service of process.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why Defendant Plata should not be dismissed from this action; and

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the 

dismissal of Defendant Plata from this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve 

process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 77 Filed 06/27/22 Page 3 of 3