Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01499-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Amico
Plaintiff
Idalberto Zaldivar-Galves
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JASON AMICO,

Plaintiff,

v.

IDALBERTO ZALDIVAR-GALVES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01499-SAB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT IDALBERTO ZALDIVARGALVES SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

(ECF No. 17)

Plaintiff Jason Amico is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This case is proceeding against Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez for deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On January 5, 2023, the Court an order directing electronic service of the first amended 

complaint on Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez. (ECF No. 12.)

On March 2, 2023, a notice of intent to not waive service was returned with a notation to 

contact the Management Solution Contracts Team. (ECF No. 16.) Accordingly, service was 

thereafter forwarded to the United States Marshal (USM). 

On May 5, 2023, the USM returned the summons unexecuted, noting that the waiver of 

service was mailed on April 4, 2023. (ECF No. 17.) 

On May 3, 2023, the summons was forwarded to the Bakersfield office for personal 

service. (Id.) On May 4, 2023, the USM spoke with the receptionist at VipMD who stated that 

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez has not worked at that office since about 2021 and they did 

not have any forwarding information. (Id.) On May 5, 2023, the USM contacted other various 

locations to locate Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez, but was told no one by the name could 

be located. (Id.) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4:

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 Marshal, upon order of 

the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “[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)), abrogated 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 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)). 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 

defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

Because the USM has not been successful in locating Defendant Idalberto ZaldivarGalvez, pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to show 

cause why Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez, should not be dismissed from this action for 

failure to serve process. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the USM with additional information, 

Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez shall be dismissed from this action.

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, 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 Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez should not be dismissed from this action 

pursuant to Rule 4(m); and

2. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that 

Defendant Idalberto Zaldivar-Galvez be dismissed from the action, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01499-KES-SAB Document 18 Filed 05/09/23 Page 3 of 3