Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00628-4/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

KEVIN LEWIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAN QUINTO, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00628-NODJ-CDB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS 

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 

SERVICE

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kevin Lewis, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on an Eighth 

Amendment claim for use of excessive force against Defendants Alan Quinto, Bobby Gilbert, 

Shannon Brown, and John Hernandez, Correctional Officers (“COs”) at North Kern State Prison;

and a claim for failure to protect against COs Brown and Hernandez. (Doc. 20.)

On October 27, 2023, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 21.) 

Specifically, service was to be effected on Defendants Quinto, Gilbert, Brown, and Hernandez. 

(Id. at 2.) 

On December 12, 2023, and again on January 8, 2024, the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) advised the Court service would not be waived as to 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 37 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 4
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

Defendant Hernandez, indicating it was unable to identify a “John Hernandez.” (Docs. 28, 32.) 

CDCR was unable to provide a last known address or any other information concerning this 

individual. 

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff identified this defendant in the operative complaint as “John Hernandez ...

correctional officer” at North Kern State Prison. (See Doc. 1 at 2.) Thus, in the Order Finding 

Service Appropriate, service was to be effected on “John Hernandez, allegedly employed as a 

correctional officer at North Kern State Prison [“NKSP”] on February 24, 2021.” (Doc. 21 at 2, 

emphasis in original.) 

The Court’s October 27, 2023, order provides that where the CDCR or the Attorney 

General’s Office is “unable to effectuate service,” service will be referred to the United States 

Marshal. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, on the date CDCR first filed its notice of intent to not waive 

service as to Defendant Hernandez (December 12, 2023), the Clerk of Court forwarded service 

documents to the United States Marshal.

On January 12, 2024, the Clerk of Court filed a summons returned unexecuted as to 

Defendant Hernandez. (Doc. 35.) In that filing, a deputy United States Marshal certified that as 

of December 28, 2023, he was unable to locate Defendant Hernandez for service. Id. 

Specifically, the deputy United States Marshal indicated: “Per NKSP LitCor, cannot identify a 

staff member by the name of John Hernandez.” Id.

Because neither CDCR nor the United States Marsha is able to identify Defendant

Hernandez, Plaintiff will be directed to provide additional information. 

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

If 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.

See 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 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 37 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 4
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

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 

(1995). 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 defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

Here, the United States Marshal cannot attempt to serve Defendant Hernandez without 

information concerning his identity and location. Plaintiff identified Defendant Hernandez as a 

correctional officer at NKSP during the incidents about which he complains. However, the CDCR 

has since advised that it was unable to identify Hernandez. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to 

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

Plaintiff’s complaint on Defendant Hernandez. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. If Plaintiff is unable 

to provide the United States Marshal with the necessary information to identify and locate this 

individual, Defendant Hernandez shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant 

to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the United 

States Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of process. Id.

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

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

respond to this order by providing additional information that will assist the United States 

Marshal in identifying and locating Defendant Hernandez for service of process. 

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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 Hernandez should not be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff may do so 

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 37 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

by providing additional information concerning Defendant Hernandez’s identity and 

current location; and

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

dismissal of any unidentified defendant 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: January 16, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00628-CDB Document 37 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 4