Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06539/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06539-14/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID KYLE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06539-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS KLARICH AND

RUFF SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

(Doc. 50)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO MAKE

PROPER SUBSTITUTION FOR DEFENDANT

KLARICH AND PROVIDE ADDRESS FOR

SERVICE BY SEPTEMBER 12, 2010

Plaintiff Alfred Brown 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 is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed October 23, 2006, against Defendants Kyle, Domingo, Klarich, and Ruff. The

United States Marshal was directed to initiate service of the amended complaint on May 27, 2009. 

Defendants Kyle and Domingowaived service and answered the amended complaint, but Defendants

Klarich and Ruff were not served. On February 19, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause

why Defendants Klarich and Ruff should not be dismissed from this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Plaintiff filed a response on April 23, 2010.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

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 orderthat 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.

1

Case 1:04-cv-06539-AWI-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/11/10 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

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)(2). “‘[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 action dismissed for failure

to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.’” Walker

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “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, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United

States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the

Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint,

the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-

22. 

Service was not executed on Defendant Klarich because he is deceased. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff 

contends that the Marshal, upon order of the court, can serve the executor of Defendant Klarich’s

estate. While Plaintiff may seek to substitute the proper party for Defendant Klarich, it is Plaintiff’s

responsibility to identify the party, make the substitution, and provide sufficient information for the

Marshal to locate the party for service. Neither the Court nor the Marshal may conduct an

investigation on Plaintiff’s behalf to determine this information. The Court will discharge the order

to show cause to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to substitute the proper party in light of Defendant

Klarich’s death and provide that party’s address for service. If Plaintiff fails to make the proper

substitution and provide a current address for service on or before September 12, 2010, Defendant

Klarich will be dismissed from this action.

Service was not executed on Defendant Ruff because she is not currently employed at the

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSTAF). (Doc. 41.) The Court and the Marshal

have a statutory duty to service process on Plaintiff’s behalf, and the response given to the Marshal

by the Litigation Office at CSATF is insufficient to allow the Court to discharge this duty on the

ground that Defendant Ruff cannot be located. 28 U.S.C. 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). The

2

Case 1:04-cv-06539-AWI-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/11/10 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

Marshal shall be directed to re-attempt service on Defendant Ruff by contacting the Legal Affairs

Division and requesting the assistance of a special investigator. 

As set forth herein, the order to show cause, filed February 19, 2010, is HEREBY

DISCHARGED. If Plaintiff fails to make the proper substitution and provide a current address for

service on or before September 12, 2010, Defendant Klarich SHALLBE dismissed from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:04-cv-06539-AWI-SKO Document 55 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 3