Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123-9/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

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOEROYK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05123-AWI-GSA-PC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS 

RESPONSE FROM PLAINTIFF DUE IN

THIRTY DAYS 

 Louis Richard Fresquez (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action alleging prison officials violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff filed this action on March 11, 2003 in the

Northern District of California. On March 18, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The

case was subsequently transferred to this court and received on January 20, 2004. 

This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on March 18, 2003,

against defendants Maka and Moeroyk only (“Defendants”), on plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims

concerning conditions of confinement. 

On June 24, 2009, the court forwarded documents to plaintiff with instructions to

complete and return them to the court for service of process on the Defendants. (Doc. 40.) On

July 6, 2009, plaintiff returned the completed documents, and on July 8, 2009, the court directed

the United States Marshal to initiate service of process upon Defendants. (Docs. 41, 42.)

1

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 49 Filed 02/19/10 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

On September 21, 2009, the United States Marshal filed returns of service unexecuted as

to Defendants Mata and Moeryk, with a notation that service was mailed to Defendants on

August 12, 2009, and on September 15, 2009, the CDC Locator responded that Defendants’

names were not found on their list. (Doc. 44.) Therefore, plaintiff shall be ordered to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed.. Within thirty days, plaintiff shall file a written

response with the court explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

successfully complete service of process on Defendants. In the alternative, plaintiff may file a

non-opposition to the dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a

written response showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for

failure to successfully complete service of process on Defendants;

2. In the alternative, plaintiff may file a written non-opposition to the dismissal of

this action; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to complete service of process and for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 49 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2