Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-20/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT PLATA, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO SERVE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata 

(formerly John Doe 1) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the 

incident on January 4, 2020.

I. Procedural Background

On March 23, 2022, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendant Plata in this 

case under the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 

California. (ECF No. 48.) The order included the following information regarding Defendant

Plata: “Plata, Correctional Officer, California State Prison – Corcoran; January 4, 2020.” (Id. at 

2.) On April 26, 2022, the Court received information that Defendant Plata could not be 

identified.

Following an order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a response providing additional 

information to identify Defendant Plata, and the Court ordered a second attempt at electronic 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 07/19/22 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

service. (ECF Nos. 56, 59–61.) The E-Service order included the following information 

regarding Defendant Plata: “Plata, Correctional Officer; California State Prison – Corcoran; 

4A2R Rotunda and 4A2R/Left ICC Room; January 4, 2020; related to Appeal #5-20-00062 filed 

by Roderick William Lear.” (ECF No. 61-1, p. 2.)

On June 14, 2022, the Court again received information from CDCR that Defendant Plata 

could not be identified, and service documents were forwarded to the United States Marshals 

Service for personal service on Defendant Plata. (ECF No. 74.) On June 24, 2022, the United 

States Marshals Service filed a return of service unexecuted as to Defendant Plata, indicating that 

the U.S. Marshal was informed by the Litigation Coordinator at Corcoran that records were 

thoroughly searched and no employees by the name of “Plata” or “Piata” could be found. (ECF 

No. 75.)

Therefore, on June 27, 2022, the Court issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to show 

cause why Defendant Plata should not be dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 77.) In that 

order, Plaintiff was warned that the failure to respond or failure to show cause would result in the 

dismissal of Defendant Plata from this action due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve process pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause on July 11, 2022. (ECF No. 78.)

II. Legal Standard

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

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 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).

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 

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 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 07/19/22 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

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, 115 

(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.

III. Discussion

The Marshal attempted to serve Defendant Plata with the information that Plaintiff 

provided. However, the information provided was not sufficient to identify Defendant Plata for 

service of process.

Plaintiff was afforded a second opportunity to provide further information to locate 

Defendant Plata, and he filed a response on July 11, 2022. (ECF No. 78.) However, Plaintiff 

makes clear in his response that he has no additional information that can be used to locate 

Defendant Plata. Rather, Plaintiff argues that Defendants and their attorney know the true 

identity of Defendant Plata and that he is consciously evading service. Plaintiff contends that 

Corcoran should have helped Plaintiff identify this officer, but instead no investigation was done 

into the facts of this case. Plaintiff states that he filed discovery requests to discover Defendant 

Plata’s true identity, but he is currently denied the right to conduct discovery.1 Plaintiff requests 

that the Court open discovery and, in addition, issue an email to all Defendants and their attorney 

directing that the officer who took Plaintiff out of his cell, or who could reasonably be construed 

as the officer who “along with” defendants allegedly assaulted Plaintiff on January 4, 2020, be 

located. (Id.)

///

1 The Court notes that discovery was originally opened in this action on February 10, 2022, (ECF 

No. 43), and discovery relating to the merits of this case was stayed on May 16, 2022, (ECF No. 

68).

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 07/19/22 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

As Plaintiff acknowledges in his response to the order to show cause, he has no additional 

information to identify Defendant Plata. Further, it was not the responsibility of CDCR or 

Defendants to provide that information to the Court. Plaintiff had approximately three months to 

conduct any needed discovery regarding Defendant Plata’s identity, but he has not identified any 

specific discovery requests he served on the remaining defendants that would lead to information 

about Defendant Plata. Further, as the Marshal has already attempted to serve Defendant Plata 

with the information that was provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient 

information to identify and locate Defendant Plata for service of process. To the extent Plaintiff 

requests that the Court order Defendants or defense counsel to provide such information directly 

to the Court, by order or by email, the Court declines to do so.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Plata be 

dismissed from this action, without prejudice, for failure to serve process pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s 

factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 79 Filed 07/19/22 Page 4 of 4