Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710-6/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

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

MICHAEL ANTHONY HOWARD, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SGT. ENCINAS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT 

ISSUE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS

LENO AND W. HANNA BE DISMISSED 

FROM THIS ACTION, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 

Michael Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law 

claims. 

This case now proceeds “on Plaintiff’s complaint filed November 19, 2018 (ECF No. 

1), on the following claims: Plaintiff’s claim against defendants J. Flores, J. Alejo, R. Nichols, 

H. Rodriguez, A. Loza, Leno, and A. Encinas for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Tumacder for failure to protect in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment; Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants J. Flores, J. Alejo, R. Nichols, H. 

Rodriguez, A. Loza, Leno, A. Encinas, Tumacder, Soto, [W.] Hanna, and Blevins; Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 4
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

Bane Act claim against defendants J. Flores, J. Alejo, R. Nichols, H. Rodriguez, A. Loza, Leno, 

and A. Encinas; and Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims against defendants J. Flores, J. Alejo, 

R. Nichols, H. Rodriguez, A. Loza, Leno, and A. Encinas.” (ECF No. 17, p. 1).

Neither defendant Leno nor defendant W. Hanna1has been served. The summons 

directed to defendant Leno was returned unexecuted. The United States Marshals Service

conducted a review of the relevant duty roster, but “[t]here was no CO named Leno or anything 

close to that working on the day of the incident.” (ECF No. 24). Additionally, the Marshals

Service certified that it was unable to locate defendant Leno. (Id.). 

As to defendant W. Hanna, evidence has been submitted that was no W. Hanna working

at the institution when the incident occurred, and that there is still no W. Hanna employed at 

the institution. (ECF No. 28-1, pgs. 1-2, ¶ 2). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),

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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshals Service, 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 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) (alterations in original)), overruled 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 

 

1 F. Hanna has waived service and filed a motion to dismiss, but W. Hanna has not yet been served.

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 4
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

F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir.1990)). However, where a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis fails 

to provide the Marshals Service with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the 

summons and complaint, dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d 

at 1421-22.

As discussed above, neither defendant Leno nor defendant W. Hanna has been served, 

and it appears that there was no “Leno” or “W. Hanna” working at the institution on the day of 

the incident alleged in the complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Marshals Service 

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

these defendants. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not provided any additional identifying 

information for these defendants, has not requested the issuance of a third party subpoena so 

that he can attempt to find additional information, and has not moved to substitute anyone in 

place of these defendants. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity 

to show cause why defendants Leno and W. Hanna should not be dismissed from the case 

because of Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to 

effect service of the summons and complaint on these defendants. If Plaintiff is unable to 

provide the Marshal with additional information, and if he does not request the issuance of a 

third party subpoena so that he can attempt to identify these defendants, the Court will issue 

findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge, recommending that these 

defendants be dismissed from the case, without prejudice.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 

show cause why the Court should not issue findings and recommendations to the 

assigned district judge, recommending that defendants Leno and W. Hanna be

dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m); and

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 4
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. Failure to respond to this order may result in defendants Leno and W. Hanna being 

dismissed from this action, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 39 Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 4