Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06977/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06977-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

DARREN HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06977-HSG (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE COURT WITH MORE 

INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANT 

RODRIQEZ

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison–Sacramento, proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and staff at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), where he was previously incarcerated. On July 9, 2018, the Court screened 

plaintiff’s amended complaint and found that it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim of 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Service was ordered on four defendants. On July 

13, 2018, the summons for defendant Nurse Rodriqez was returned unexecuted with the following 

remark by the United States Marshal: “CDCR is unable to identify an employee with given last 

name.” Docket No. 22. Accordingly, defendant Rodriqez has not been served.

Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on 

service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such 

service;” rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant 

and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). Absent a showing of “good cause,” a complaint pending for 

over 90 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve 

defendant Rodriqez. Consequently, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of 

defendant Rodriqez from this action without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 

1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 

(1995) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under 

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 23 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 2
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

Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient information to 

effectuate service). 

Accordingly, within ninety (90) days of this order, plaintiff must effectuate service on 

defendant Rodriqez, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate defendant 

Rodriqez such that the Marshal is able to effectuate service. If plaintiff fails to provide the 

Court with the information requested within ninety (90) days of the date this order is filed, 

plaintiff’s claim against defendant Rodriqez will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the status of defendant Rodriqez remains unclear, the briefing schedule set forth in 

the Court’s July 9, 2018 order of service 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

7/19/2018

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 23 Filed 07/19/18 Page 2 of 2