Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04814-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

UNSERVED DEFENDANT SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED

Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Healthcare Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the full filing fee. On March 2, 2015, the Court screened the 

complaint and found that plaintiff had stated the following cognizable claims: (1) deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs against defendant UCSF Medical Doctor Shane Burch; (2) a 

supplemental state law negligence claim against defendant Burch; and (3) supplemental state law 

product liability claims against defendant Medtronic, Inc. See Dkt. No. 18.

In the same order, the Court advised plaintiff that, because he is not proceeding in forma 

pauperis, he may not rely on the United States Marshal or officers of the Court for service. 

Plaintiff was issued a summons and copies of the complaint so that he could effectuate service 

himself. Plaintiff was directed to provide proof of service of the summons and complaint within 

56 days and was cautioned that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of any unserved 

defendants.

On April 7, 2015, plaintiff filed proofs of service indicating that he served defendants with 

the summons and complaint on March 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 21. The proofs of service are signed by 

plaintiff personally. See id. at 13-14. On April 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a “supplemental proof of 

service” indicating defendants were served with the summons and complaint again on March 31, 

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 26 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2015. Dkt. No. 23. The attached proofs of service are signed by a non-party prisoner by the name 

of Elze Block. See id. at 4-5. Defendant Medtronic, Inc. has appeared and has filed an answer to 

the complaint. See Dkt. No. 25. Defendant Burch has not appeared or responded.

After reviewing the proofs of service, it appears that defendant Burch was not properly 

served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). Rule 4(e) governs service on individual 

defendants and provides, in pertinent part: “an individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of 

the United States by . . . doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of 

the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling 

or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) 

delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of 

process.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). “Defendants must be served in accordance with [Rule 4], or 

there is no personal jurisdiction.” Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(citation omitted). “Neither actual notice, nor simply naming the person in the caption of the 

complaint, will subject defendants to personal jurisdiction if service was not made in substantial 

compliance with Rule 4.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Rule 4(e) also provides for service in accordance with state law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). 

In California, this includes physical delivery to the defendant or defendant’s agent (see Cal. Code 

Civ. Pro. § 415.10); substitute service to someone else at the defendant’s residence or place of 

business (see Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 415.20); and service by mail coupled with acknowledgement 

of receipt (see Cal. Civ. Pro. § 415.30).

According to the proofs of service submitted by plaintiff, the summons and complaint were 

mailed to defendant Burch via the United States Postal Service. It thus appears that plaintiff 

attempted service in accord with Section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 

However, he has not provided acknowledgement of receipt by defendant Burch as required by 

Section 415.30, and defendant Burch has not appeared in this action.

The Court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s status as pro se litigant, 

however, does not excuse him from compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, 

e.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (noting the Supreme Court has “never 

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 26 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse 

mistakes by those who proceed without counsel”). Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that he 

accomplished service of process in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1). If a defendant has not been 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.” 

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

Because defendant Burch has not been served within the time ordered by the Court, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), plaintiff is ordered to show cause within 20 days of the filing date of this 

order why defendant Burch should not be dismissed without prejudice. Failure to demonstrate 

good cause within 20 days of the filing date of this order will result in the dismissal of defendant 

Burch from this action without prejudice.

The briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s March 2, 2015 order is VACATED. The 

Court will issue a new briefing schedule for dispositive motions when all service issues have been 

resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/15/2015

Case 4:14-cv-04814-HSG Document 26 Filed 06/15/15 Page 3 of 3