Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02317/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02317-18/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT BENYAMINI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAMMER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2317 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 15, 2013. ECF No. 25. On July 11, 

2013, the amended complaint was ordered served on numerous defendants, including defendant 

Howe. ECF No. 29. The service order cautioned the parties that failure to obey the federal or 

local rules or orders of the court could result in sanctions, including a recommendation that the 

case be dismissed. Id. at 5. The summons on Howe was returned unexecuted on December 10, 

2013. ECF No. 41. The summons was served at “New Folsom” (California State PrisonSacramento) and was returned with the following remark: “Per fac – former employee – contact 

info is not current – tried to forward service returned to sender not at this address.” Id. Plaintiff 

was ordered to provide additional information to serve defendant Howe or show good cause why 

he could not provide such information. ECF No. 42. Plaintiff returned a summons for defendant 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 93 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

Howe (ECF No. 47) and service was re-ordered on March 24, 2014 (ECF No. 48). Process 

directed to defendant Howe has once again been returned unserved with the explanation “unable 

to identify.” Inspection of the summons reveals that it is nearly identical to the first summons 

plaintiff submitted and again attempted to serve defendant Howe at “New Folsom,” despite the 

fact that the previous summons had been returned because it could not be executed at that 

location. ECF No. 91. 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: 

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is 

filed, the court—on motion or 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. 

“The purpose of Rule 4(m) is to assure that defendant will be promptly notified of the lawsuit, 

thereby preventing possible prejudice resulting from delay: e.g., loss of evidence, dimming of 

witnesses’ memories, financial commitments based on not being sued, etc.” A. Wallace Tashima 

& James M. Wagstaffe, Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, Calif. 

& 9th Cir. Editions § 5:261 (2015 rev.) (citation omitted, emphasis in original). Plaintiff has 

already been afforded an opportunity to re-serve defendant Howe and, instead of providing an 

alternate address for service or showing cause why he could not provide such information, he 

attempted to re-serve the summons at a location where Howe could not be served. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause in writing within 

thirty days from the date of this order why defendant Howe should not be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow court orders. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(m); E.D. Local Rule 110. 

DATED: July 12, 2015 

Case 2:11-cv-02317-TLN-AC Document 93 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 2