Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00951/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16cv951-MMA (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARAMO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv951-MMA (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on April 19, 2016. On August 1, 2016 and subsequently on January 5, 2017, the Court 

issued orders granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and directing 

the U.S. Marshal (“USMS”) to effect service on named Defendants. (ECF No. 5 at 7-8; 

ECF No. 9.) The summons for Defendants Chief Medical Officer James Walker and

Doctor Luzyiminda Saidro were returned unexecuted on February 9, 2017. (ECF Nos. 11-

12.) On March 7, nunc pro tunc to February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery

seeking the addresses and phone numbers for Defendants Walker and Saidro in order to

have the USMS effect service of his complaint. (ECF No. 16.)

“[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, having provided the 

Case 3:16-cv-00951-MMA-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv951-MMA (BGS)

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

necessary information to help effectuate service, plaintiff should not be penalized by 

having his or her action dismissed for failure to effect service . . . .” 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 of process is 

automatically good cause within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).1

See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by 

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

Here, Plaintiff sufficiently identified Defendants Walker and Saidro as employees

of RJD and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) during 

the time he has been imprisoned therein. The Litigation Coordinator at RJD returned the 

unexecuted summons stating that Defendants Walker and Saidro are not current employees

of RJD. (ECF. Nos. 11-12.) So long as the privacy of the Defendants’ forwarding 

addresses can be preserved and the forwarding addresses can easily be ascertained by 

reference to the CDCR’s personnel records, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the USMS to 

effect service upon these Defendants on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at 275; Morris v. 

Barr, No. 10-cv-2642-AJB (BGS), 2011 WL 3859711, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011); 

Jensen v. Knowles, 621 F. Supp. 2d 921, 929-31 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Dodson v. Rocha, No. 

07cv0869–W (RBB), 2008 WL 251947, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008) (“As long as 

Defendant[’s] . . . forwarding address can be easily ascertained by reference to the 

[CDCR’s] personnel records, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the [USMS] to effect service 

on him.”). 

 

1 Rule 4(m) provides that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 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). Based on a prior 

Order, service is to be effected by April 5, 2017. (ECF No. 9 at 2.) However, good cause 

being shown, the deadline for service is extended as outlined below.

Case 3:16-cv-00951-MMA-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv951-MMA (BGS)

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

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 16) and hereby 

directs the USMS to contact either the Litigation Coordinator at RJD or the CDCR’s Legal 

Affairs Division, if necessary, to obtain current/forwarding addresses within the CDCR’s 

records or possession. Any addresses shall be forwarded on or before April 12, 2017 to 

the USMS in a confidential memorandum. The USMS are ORDERED to keep strictly 

confidential any address provided for the Defendants. Thus, the addresses shall not appear 

on any USMS Form 285, shall not be provided to Plaintiff, and shall not be made part of 

the Court’s record.

Within 30 days of receipt of any available addresses, the Court ORDERS the USMS

to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint and summons upon Defendants Walker and Saidro. 

All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant to the Court’s Order 

granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and directing service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). (ECF Nos. 5 and 9.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00951-MMA-BGS Document 18 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3